I have made maven-scm-provider-hg "lie" about empty directory additions for now.
I've added attachments to SCM-244 and SCM-230. The attachment on SCM-244 is a patch re: the tick time in the changelog test in mvn-scm-test. The attachment in SCM-230 is a tarball of a cleaned-up, working, test-passing maven-scm-provider-hg. Can you integrate these into the maven-scm package at your convenience? Ryan On 4/12/07, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the directory itself and files must be listed as an addition. Ryan Daum a écrit : > Question: for non-empty directories, does the test assume that the > directory itself shows up as an addition? Or just the files in it? > > Ryan > > On 4/12/07, * Ryan Daum* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > On 4/12/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > If it ignore the addition, it doesn't generate an error, right? > So the result of the add command should return true. > > > Actually the code in addToWorkingTree expects that for this addition > there should be one file added. > > Wouldn't a better place for the "isAllowEmptyDirectoryAdd" be on the > AbstractScmProvider? > > Ryan > > > But we can add a "isAllowToAddEmptyDirectory()" method in the > AddCommand and use it in ScmTestCase > > Emmanuel > > Ryan Daum a écrit : > > Many revision control systems (Mercurial included) ignore the > addition > > of empty directories to a repository. But the following code in > > StatusCommandTckTest requires that the SCM provider "pretend" > to have > > added the directory: > > > > // /src/test/java/org > > ScmTestCase.makeDirectory( getUpdatingCopy(), > > "/src/test/java/org" ); > > > > addToWorkingTree( getUpdatingCopy(), new File( > > "src/test/java/org" ), repository ); > > > > I can write some fairly elaborate code to have > mercurial-provider-hg > > "lie" about the addition, but I am worried about potential > side effects > > here. > > > > Is it really the intention of maven-scm to enforce this > behaviour, or > > can we have a per-SCM-provider configuration which declares > whether to > > test this behaviour? > > > > Thanks, Ryan > > > > -- > > Ryan Daum > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > Senior Developer, Toronto > > 647.724.5232 x 2073 > > > > > -- > Ryan Daum > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Senior Developer, Toronto > 647.724.5232 x 2073 > > > > > -- > Ryan Daum > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Senior Developer, Toronto > 647.724.5232 x 2073
-- Ryan Daum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Developer, Toronto 647.724.5232 x 2073
