Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Is this a good idea? ---
Sure -- why not?
> [[[
> Test that 'svnadmin freeze' is nestable.
>
> This would be useful in practice as a means to easily freeze a (small)
> number of repositories simultaneously. It also verifies that 'freeze'
> doesn't take system-global locks.
Please put this documentation of the test's purpose in the test itself.
> Incidentally, this is also the first 'svnadmin freeze' test in our tree.
Well, it's certainly a good idea to have a basic test for each feature that at
least simply exercises the feature.
> * subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
> (freeze_freeze): New test.
> (test_list): Run it.
> ]]]
>
> [[[
> Index: subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
> ===================================================================
> --- subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py (revision 1585428)
> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py (working copy)
> @@ -2397,6 +2397,14 @@ def verify_packed(sbox):
> svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svnadmin(None, expected_output, [],
> "verify", sbox.repo_dir)
>
> +def freeze_freeze(sbox):
> + "svnadmin freeze svnadmin freeze (some-cmd)"
> + sbox.build(create_wc=False)
> + second_repo_dir, _ = sbox.add_repo_path('backup')
> + svntest.main.run_svnadmin('freeze', sbox.repo_dir, '--',
> + svntest.main.svnadmin_binary, 'freeze', second_repo_dir,
> '--',
> + sys.executable, '-c', 'True')
> +
> ########################################################################
> # Run the tests
>
> @@ -2442,6 +2450,7 @@ test_list = [ None,
> load_ignore_dates,
> fsfs_hotcopy_old_with_propchanges,
> verify_packed,
> + freeze_freeze,
> ]
>
> if __name__ == '__main__':
> ]]]
>
> On re-reading the code, I wonder if I should add read_only=True to
> sbox.create().. this would cause the code to freeze the shared read-only
> repository, which shouldn't affect other tests in any way except perhaps
> to slow them down (when BDB is in use).
No. Keep tests independent. Anyway, this requires a kind of write access to the
repo it freezes.
- Julian
