What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag arbitrary files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current revision of the entire repository. The parent tck test seems to require the ability to tag specific files only.
Ryan On 5/22/07, Ryan Daum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're saying is unless you branched (did you? where can I check out the branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in before the release. Ryan On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ryan Daum a écrit : > > Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the commits you > > checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing > > org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't actually run > > through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me instructions > on > > how to get the latest checkout to build? > > My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build when the > 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo. > You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/ > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>) > > > > > What specifically fails on the tck? Please provide surefire results, > as > > I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added. > > the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Test set: > org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2 sec > <<< FAILURE! > testTagCommandTest( > org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest) Time > elapsed: 1.985 sec <<< ERROR! > java.lang.NullPointerException > at > org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest > (TagCommandTckTest.java:53) > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke( > NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39) > at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke( > DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25) > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585) > at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154) > at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:127) > at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106) > at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124) > at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109) > at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118) > at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java:208) > at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203) > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke( > NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java :39) > at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke( > DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25) > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585) > at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute ( > JUnitTestSet.java:213) > at > org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet > (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138) > at > org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute ( > AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125) > at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132) > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) > at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke ( > NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39) > at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke( > DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25) > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585) > at > org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess ( > SurefireBooter.java:290) > at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main( > SurefireBooter.java:818) > at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main( > SurefireBooter.java:818) > > > > > > Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from the > first > > lines how it is invalid. > > Index: > maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java > > =================================================================== > --- > maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java > (revision 0) > +++ > maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java > (working copy) > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ; > +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag; > > /* > * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one > @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@ > * under the License. > */ > > -import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ; > +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils; > > ... > > It isn't a patch for a file creation. > > Emmanuel > > > > Ryan > > > > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck. > > > > You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on the hg > > provider > > > > For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in SCM-319 > wasn't > > correct (look at first lines) > > > > I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't have > > your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version. > > > > Emmanuel > > > > Ryan Daum a écrit : > > > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider > > > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag" command was > > > missing. I've just fixed this. > > > > > > Please see the patch attached to > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319 > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Ryan Daum > > > > > > -- > > > 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] Senior Developer, Toronto 647.724.5232 x 2073
-- Ryan Daum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Developer, Toronto 647.724.5232 x 2073
