Just want to point out one more thing, and that is that the class TagScmResult has two constructors, one of which accepts the list of tagged files and the other which does not, leaving that list null. If the intention is that all SCM providers provide this list, then the other constructor should not exist. Alternatively, if this is not the intention, then the Tck test should not require that this list be populated.
Ryan On 5/22/07, Ryan Daum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of tagged files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes sense that the Tck test should require that a provider return a list like this in this case. I'm very skeptical of making the provider's tag command perform an additional operation to list all the files in the repository given that it already is doing two operations: tag and push. Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how meaningful this test is. I'm of the mind to say: just remove the test from the test suite. I have manually tested the functionality and know that it works, and I think this feature is pretty critical for a 1.0 release which includes the Mercurial provider. Your call, Ryan On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that must > contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know with the hg tag > command the list of tagged files by parsing the output. > > Emmanuel > > Ryan Daum a écrit : > > 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] > > <mailto:[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] > > <mailto:[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/> > > <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]> > > > <mailto:[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]>> > <mailto: > > > [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]> <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
-- Ryan Daum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Developer, Toronto 647.724.5232 x 2073
