On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Fredrik Orderud <forde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: > >> Fredrik Orderud wrote on Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 22:40:02 +0200: >> > I've now written an XFAIL test for merging the same change change >> twice. >> > Patch attached. The test fails as expected due to the lack of conflict. >> > This is the first test I've ever written for subversion, so there are >> > probably some improvement opportunities. I suspect that one weak spot is >> > that a "greek-tree" structure is generated without being used in the >> test. >> > Also, comparison of console output for merge results feels a little >> fragile. >> >> Yes, agreed on both points. You could use A/mu instead of creating a new >> file, and use one of the svntest/actions.py helpers that parse the >> output of merge/status instead of depending on the exact byte-by-byte >> expected output. More below. >> >> > Please let me know if there are any comments to the patch, and I'll do >> my >> > best to improve it. Otherwise, it would be great it the test could be >> > integrated, so that issue #4405 can receive some test coverage. >> >> Please use text/plain MIME type. This makes review easier. Usually >> *.txt extesion achieves this. >> >> I think the patch is correct *if* we agree that "Merge the same change >> twice" should raise a conflict. Prior discussion in this thread >> indicates that in present svn that scenario is explicitly decided not to >> be a conflict. Therefore, I am not going to commit this patch. >> >> I think the best thing to do is to attach it to the issue tracker on the >> issue tracking Julian's suggestion of a "strict conflicts" mode. That >> way, we can apply the patch once we start implementing the "strict" >> mode. (We tend not to change our svntest/*.py interfaces that much, so >> I wouldn't be concerned about bitrot.) >> >> So, in summary: thanks for the patch, I think it's correct, but I'm not >> going to apply it for the reasons above. >> >> Does that make sense? >> > > Thank you for the response Daniel. I agree with your reasoning and will be > satisfied with a "strict conflicts" mode in subversion. That's fine for > me. :-) > > I will attempt to improve the patch based on Johan's and your feedback, and > attach it to the issue-tracker sometime the next few days. > I've managed to rewrite the test script to use A/mu in the auto-generated greek tree, but I did not understand how to use svntest/actions.py to parse the output. Still, I took the liberty of attaching a 2nd revision of the failing XFAIL test to http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4405 Hope that this is ok for you. Fredrik
