On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> wrote: > Paul Burba wrote: > >> Julian Foad wrote: >>> I (Julian Foad) wrote on 2013-01-31: >>> >>>> Hi Paul. Not sure about this... >>> >>> 1441810 fixes this and extends the test. >> >> Thanks Julian. >> >> I added r1441810 to the issue #4306 group on 1.7.x, with the caveat >> that property conflicts are not handled properly in 1.7, rendering >> your latest version of the test problematic on that branch -- see >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS?r1=1442368&r2=1442367&pathrev=1442368 > > OK, but something's lost in the translation. You say you "reworked the > earlier version of test to demonstrate the problem r1441810 fixes", but it > fixes two problems (quoting from the log msg): > > (1) It didn't abort if there were conflicts on the last sub-range of a > non-last > requested range. (2) When aborting with conflicts it recorded mergeinfo > describing only the current sub-range, not the sub-ranges merged before the > conflict. > > Your test only specifies a single range ("all") to merge, so it can't test > (1). > > > Something looks wrong in this hunk of your change, at least with the comment: > > # Previously this test failed because the merge failed after merging > - # only r2 (as it should) but mergeinfo for r5-6 was recorded, preventing > + # only r5 (as it should) but only mergeinfo for r5 was recorded, even > + # though preventing > # subsequent repeat merges from applying the operative r5. > svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn( > "Incorrect mergeinfo set during conflict aborted merge", > - ['/iota:2-4\n'], [], 'pg', SVN_PROP_MERGEINFO, iota_copy_path) > + ['/iota:2-6\n'], [], 'pg', SVN_PROP_MERGEINFO, iota_copy_path) > > On trunk, there were two previous buggy behaviours: most recently, mergeinfo > for only r5 would have been recorded here, but before your initial fix (and, > I guess, in 1.7.x) mergeinfo for the whole requested range (including in this > case r3, r5, r7) was recorded; the latter is therefore what we want to > mention here. > > - Julian
In r1445454 I did what I probably should have done from the start: Take your version test (rather than my earlier version) and use it as a template for a 1.7 test that simple replaces the prop edits on 'A/mu' with text edits. The test coverage should now be as identical as possible on the 1.7.x-issue4306 branch and trunk. -- Paul T. Burba CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development Skype: ptburba
