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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]>
> <mailto:[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]>
> <mailto:[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]>>
> > <mailto: [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]>>> <mailto:
> > [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]>> <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]>
<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
