On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Bert Huijben <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Hyrum K. Wright >> Sent: donderdag 8 juli 2010 4:31 >> To: Bert Huijben >> Cc: Subversion Development >> Subject: Re: Do we better tolerate obstructed updates? >> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Bert Huijben <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of >> >> Hyrum K. Wright >> >> Sent: woensdag 7 juli 2010 6:03 >> >> To: Subversion Development >> >> Subject: Do we better tolerate obstructed updates? >> >> >> >> The bindings tests are currently failing, and there appear to be two >> >> root causes. One of them, causing test failures in both JavaHL and >> >> swig-rb, is that the tests expect an error with an operation that >> used >> >> to cause an obstruction, such as update, but those errors are no >> >> longer being returned. Has something changed recently which allows >> us >> >> to better tolerate obstructions? >> > >> > In preparation of making this 1.6.x error into obstruction conflicts >> later, >> > we started skipping obstructing files, recording that by adding a >> > not-present marker in BASE_NODE (and maybe some tree conflict in some >> cases, >> > but I don't know about that part?). >> > >> > When we have the central db+pristine store ready we can switch to >> just >> > continuing the BASE_NODE update, while adding an obstruction conflict >> to >> > record that the in-wc file is not the real wc-file. >> >> So, what is the appropriate change to the tests, which used to expect >> an error, but which is now not thrown? > > I think it should check that a proper obstruction is notified and maybe that > a future update brings in the new data.
Is this in the intended future behavior, or the current behavior? In modifying the JavaHL test which is having this problem, I don't see obstructed_update notified, only a tree conflict. -Hyrum
