Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 26.01.2015 15:50, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Excellent. Is anyone able to lend a hand with one of these two of the tasks
>> I listed:
>>
>> - Bypass authz when dumping with svnrdump, otherwise a partial dump is
>> obtained for tests using authz, making those tests fai
On 26.01.2015 15:50, Julian Foad wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 26.01.2015 14:13, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> I attach the latest version of my dump/load cross-checking patch.
>>>
>>> Do we want to commit this? I think we should. It has been very useful in
>> uncovering dump/load bugs and incon
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Julian Foad
wrote:
> Hi Bert! Thanks for airing your concerns.
>
> Bert Huijben wrote:
> > I see added value in these tests, but can we please make this behavior
> optional
> > before enabling for everybody all the time?
>
> Certainly! That's one of the three TODO
Hi Bert! Thanks for airing your concerns.
Bert Huijben wrote:
> I see added value in these tests, but can we please make this behavior
> optional
> before enabling for everybody all the time?
Certainly! That's one of the three TODO tasks I listed.
> I don't see why every test in the testsuite
Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 26.01.2015 14:13, Julian Foad wrote:
>> I attach the latest version of my dump/load cross-checking patch.
>>
>> Do we want to commit this? I think we should. It has been very useful in
> uncovering dump/load bugs and inconsistencies.
>
> Absolutely +1, more tests can't
> -Original Message-
> From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: maandag 26 januari 2015 15:17
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Testing equality between svnrdump and svnadmin dump
>
> On 26.01.2015 14:13, Julian Foad wrote:
> > I atta
On 26.01.2015 14:13, Julian Foad wrote:
> I attach the latest version of my dump/load cross-checking patch.
>
> Do we want to commit this? I think we should. It has been very useful in
> uncovering dump/load bugs and inconsistencies.
Absolutely +1, more tests can't hurt.
-- Brane
I attach the latest version of my dump/load cross-checking patch.
Do we want to commit this? I think we should. It has been very useful in
uncovering dump/load bugs and inconsistencies.
It needs a bit more work first, as noted in the log message:
### TODO:
- Put back the dumpfile parser's abi
Bert Huijben wrote:
> It could be that it is already there, but there should be inheritance of
> copyfrom values within added directories.
Thanks for the heads-up. It looks like that may be broken here too. I'll check.
This sort of nonsense is why I'm working on deduplicating the dump and load
c
It could be that it is already there, but there should be inheritance of
copyfrom values within added directories.
Only when the revision number (or path) changes you will get a new copyfrom.
(This is what you see on a mixed revision copy… There should also be a delete
in that case now, althou
I found in another bug in 'svnrdump load'.
When my additional testing runs 'svnrdump load' on a dumpfile produced by
'svnadmin dump' (non-deltas mode), some tests including copy_tests.py 7 and 11
fail.
When loading an add-with-history froma non-deltas dumpfile, on reading the new
properties, t
I corrected the dump-load format documentation in r1652064, with wording
similar to the patch I had given here. I confirmed by code inspection that
svndumpfilter had behaved this way since Subversion 1.0.
- Julian
I (Julian Foad) wrote on 2015-01-13:
> 1. When a revision has no revprops, svnad
Bert Huijben wrote:
> I haven't reviewed all of this, but I'm wondering why in your patch
> [[
> def parse_path(self):
> - path = self.parse_line('Node-path: (.+)$', required=False)
> - if not path and self.lines[self.current] == 'Node-path: \n':
> - self.current += 1
> - path =
> -Original Message-
> From: Julian Foad [mailto:julianf...@btopenworld.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 13 januari 2015 15:22
> To: Branko Čibej
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Testing equality between svnrdump and svnadmin dump
>
> The next version of my t
The next version of my testing patch is attached. It pipes each dumpfile
through svndumpfilter and checks that a no-op filtering does not change
anything.
This finds some differences between svnadmin and svndumpfilter:
1. When a revision has no revprops, svnadmin outputs an empty properties
se
Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 12.01.2015 13:54, Julian Foad wrote:
>> svnmucc_tests.py 2 'basic svnmucc tests' generates a no-op modification
>> to an empty file, in revision 16. 'svnadmin dump' outputs this:
>> [[[
>> I: Node-path: boozle/buz/svnmucc-test.py
>> I: Node-kind: file
>> I: Node-action:
On 12.01.2015 13:54, Julian Foad wrote:
> I (Julian Foad) wrote:
>> The few differences I have found seem to be already known (but not
>> necessarily
>> adequately addressed). These include: svnrdump always sets 'Prop-delta:
>> true' even when unnecessary; svnrdump doesn't output some of the
>>
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> The few differences I have found seem to be already known (but not
> necessarily
> adequately addressed). These include: svnrdump always sets 'Prop-delta:
> true' even when unnecessary; svnrdump doesn't output some of the
> checksum headers that svnadmin does; they put
18 matches
Mail list logo
