This is an interesting fault.
The test is to lock paths and generate an error. In my build, it fails...
because the svn_fs_lock_many call returns success.
/* Trying to lock some paths. We don't really care about error; the test
shouldn't crash. */
target = svn_fs_lock_target_create(NULL, newrev, pool);
lock_paths = apr_hash_make(pool);
svn_hash_sets(lock_paths, "/iota", target);
svn_hash_sets(lock_paths, "/A/mu", target);
apr_hash_clear(baton.results);
SVN_TEST_ASSERT_ANY_ERROR(svn_fs_lock_many(fs, lock_paths, "comment", 0,
0, 0,
lock_many_cb, &baton, pool,
pool));
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 9:15 PM Alan Fry <ttlx0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for all who are helping.
>
> After some digging and using the references from this group, I'm down to
> just one error in the fails file (below). I'm still digging into this.
> Does anyone have hints on where / what library might cause this one to
> fault? Since this is clearly a low level call, I'm assuming that some
> prerequisite is the issue. This is on the linux build.
>
> I have all the helpful hints for the Windows build, once I get some time
> to work on that, I'll create a seperate thread.
>
> [[[
> subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/locks-test.c:1134: (apr_err=SVN_ERR_TEST_FAILED)
> svn_tests: E200006: Expected error but got SVN_NO_ERROR
> FAIL: locks-test 14: lock/unlock when 'write-lock' couldn't be obtained
> ]]]
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 7:46 PM Alan Fry <ttlx0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Excellent, thank you.
>>
>> So the target is "all tests succeeded".
>>
>> And thank you, I'll dive into the tests.log file. I'm sure the errors
>> are due to the build that I'm trying, not actual faults in the code.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:45 PM Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24.11.2020 19:05, Alan Fry wrote:
>>> > Having some time finally to work on building SVN (thanks all who
>>> > helped me get this far), I setup a VM with Ubuntu. (Also setup a
>>> > Windows 10 machine w/ Visual studio, but have not started on that
>>> > effort yet).
>>> >
>>> > Knowing little about linux, I managed to get this far, the results of
>>> > make checks
>>> >
>>> > Last part of the make check:
>>> >
>>> > At least one test FAILED, checking
>>> > /home/svn/Documents/subversion-1.14.0/tests.log
>>> > FAIL: error-test 3: test svn_error_symbolic_name
>>> > FAIL: locks-test 14: lock/unlock when 'write-lock' couldn't be
>>> obtained
>>> > FAIL: commit_tests.py 48: set revision props during remote property
>>> edit
>>> > FAIL: prop_tests.py 1: write/read props in wc only (ps, pl, pdel, pe)
>>> > FAIL: prop_tests.py 16: property operations on a URL
>>> > FAIL: update_tests.py 38: update --accept automatic conflict
>>> resolution
>>> > Summary of test results:
>>> > 2508 tests PASSED
>>> > 162 tests SKIPPED
>>> > 81 tests XFAILED (17 WORK-IN-PROGRESS)
>>> > 6 tests FAILED
>>> > Python version: 3.8.5.
>>> > SUMMARY: Some tests failed
>>> >
>>> > Are these errors something I need to dig into, indicating that my
>>> > build is no good? I was reading in the "INSTALL" document, there is
>>> > mention that some errors are expected. Is there a way to determine if
>>> > these are expected errors?
>>>
>>> Expected test failures are tagged as XFAIL, not FAIL. So these are
>>> "real" failures. Also the summary line would read "All tests succeeded"
>>> if there were only expected failures.
>>>
>>> You should look at tests.log (the test driver hepfully prints the whole
>>> path) to see why those tests failed, it could be something trivial. It's
>>> not likely that there's a problem with the code, we'd have noticed that.
>>>
>>> -- Brane
>>>
>>
