On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 14:36 +0100, Philip Martin wrote: >> Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> writes: >> >> > I found a bug in "svn info -R": it doesn't report a node that has a tree >> > conflict but otherwise is nonexistent, except if this node is the root >> > node of the requested target path. >> >> I think that's an actual-only node. See >> >> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3779 >> >> which says that we need to ensure that commands behave sensibly on >> actual-only nodes. > > Yes. > > The 'info' code uses svn_wc__internal_walk_children(), and makes a > special case of checking for a tree conflict on the target node if that > walk function returns a NOT FOUND error. But 'info' doesn't check for > tree conflicts on other unvisited leaf nodes that may exist as > actual-only nodes. > > One way or another, 'info' is going to have to walk a tree of nodes that > includes actual-only nodes. It could either do this itself or we could > have a walker function that does that. It's logically re-usable > functionality (even if 'info' is currently the only user) so we should > have some kind of walker function that does that. So I'll look at > adding this functionality into svn_wc__internal_walk_children().
That's my "gut feeling" as well. ACTUAL-only children are still children (in some sense), and should be included in the set of paths returned by a walk of the children. I seem to recall attempting to include tree conflict victims in the set of walked children a few months ago, but the state of the code at that time did not make it very practical. I think times have since changed. -Hyrum
