Ryan
On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
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
--
Ryan Daum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
