Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> writes:
> Noorul Islam K M wrote on Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:27:46 +0530:
>
>> Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> writes:
>>
>> > Looks good, but I have a question:
>> >
>> > Noorul Islam K M wrote on Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 13:12:54 +0530:
>> >>
>> >> Attached is the python test for issue 3013. This incorporates the steps
>> >> from the shell script attached in the tracker.
>> >>
>> >> Log
>> >> [[[
>> >>
>> >> New XFail test for issue 3013.
>> >>
>> >> * subversion/tests/cmdline/update_tests.py
>> >> (update_after_switching_to_deleted_path, test_list): New XFail test
>> >>
>> >> Patch by: Noorul Islam K M <noorul{_AT_}collab.net>
>> >> ]]]
>> >>
>> >> Thanks and Regards
>> >> Noorul
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Index: subversion/tests/cmdline/update_tests.py
>> >> ===================================================================
>> >> --- subversion/tests/cmdline/update_tests.py (revision 1063610)
>> >> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/update_tests.py (working copy)
>> >> @@ -5347,6 +5347,34 @@
>> >> svntest.main.run_svn(None, 'delete', os.path.join('A2', 'mu'))
>> >> svntest.main.run_svn(None, 'update', os.path.join('A2', 'mu'))
>> >>
>> >> +### regression test for issue #3013
>> >> +def update_after_switching_to_deleted_path(sbox):
>> >> + "update after switching to deleted path"
>> >> +
>> >> + sbox.build()
>> >> + wc_dir = sbox.wc_dir
>> >> + repo_url = sbox.repo_url
>> >> +
>> >> + # switch to A/B
>> >> + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn2(None, None, [], 0, 'switch',
>> >> + repo_url + "/A/B", wc_dir)
>> >> +
>> >> + # delete A/D
>> >> + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn2(None, None, [], 0, 'rm',
>> >> + repo_url + "/A/D", '-m',
>> >> + 'Remove A/D')
>> >> +
>> >> + # switch to A/D and this is known to fail
>> >> + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn2(None, None,
>> >> svntest.verify.AnyOutput,
>> >> + 1, 'switch', repo_url + "/A/D",
>> >> wc_dir)
>> >> +
>> >> + # switch to A/D@1 and this is known to succeed
>> >> + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn2(None, None, [], 0, 'switch',
>> >> + repo_url + "/A/D@1", wc_dir)
>> >> +
>> >> + # update should succeed
>> >> + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn2(None, None, [], 0, "up", wc_dir)
>> >> +
>> >
>> > Should this 'update' succeed? In my testing, updating the wc root to
>> > a revision it does not exist in fails.
>>
>> "/A/D" @ revision 1 does exist. So update should succeed but it is
>> failing. This is the issue.
>>
>
> I think the issue is that the 'switch' is failing, nothing about the
> update.
>
> But, in fact: both switch and update work as long as the directory
> they're targetting is a wc subdir (as opposed to a wc root). Therefore,
> I'm inclined to mark the issue as FIXED and adjust the test to test that
> the switch works when the being-switched directory is not the wc root.
>
> Thoughts?
>
Pasting our conversation on IRC here.
<noorul> danielsh_: The switch is known fail @HEAD and not @1 [12:48]
<noorul> A/D is non-existent @HEAD and existent @1 hence first switch is known
to fail and the second one to succeed
<noorul> When the second one succeeds the subsequent update should update WC
with repo_url@1 [12:49]
<danielsh_> noorul: see mail, I think it's a different issue,
<danielsh_> the switch actually works when you do 'svn sw $URL
/path/to/wc/rootdir/some/subdir'
<noorul> I think I correctly converted
http://subversion.tigris.org/nonav/issues/showattachment.cgi/1157/3013.sh
into a test [12:52]
<danielsh_> yes
<danielsh_> I think the 'update' shouldn't have been in the .sh script either
btw [12:53]
<danielsh_> but that's history
<noorul> Before svn update if we use 'svn info' we could see that it is
pointing to repo_url@1 [12:54]
<noorul> Shouldn't svn up bring wc in sync with that revision?
<noorul> A/D existing @1 the error message is misleading [12:55]
<danielsh_> currently the 'up' fails iff the
dir-being-updated-past-its-deletion is the wc root
<danielsh_> I think that's sensible,
<danielsh_> to error if the wcroot would have to be deleted,
<danielsh_> but feel free to discuss that on dev@
<danielsh_> re error messages: haven't checked whether they're misleading or
not
<danielsh_> haven't read them actually, just checked if the up succeeded or
not and what rev it put me at
<noorul> danielsh_: Do you mean to say that "svn up A/D" would succeed instead
of "svn up ." [13:03]
<danielsh_> noorul: svn rm ^/A/D; svn up A/D/; <-- succeeds [13:04]
<danielsh_> noorul: svn co ^/A foo; cd foo; svn rm ^/A; svn up; <-- fails
<danielsh_> that's current behaviour [13:05]
<noorul> danielsh_: With respect to the test case [13:06]
<noorul> I mean the test case that I submitted, do you think that svn up
should succeed?
<danielsh_> noorul: I think the 'svn up' doesn't belong in that test case, I
think that issue is only about the 'switch'.
<danielsh_> (that's my opinion; other devs may disagree with me)
Thanks and Regards
Noorul
