On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:42 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>> Did I miss something in the original problem description? Is that
>>>> precisely
>>>> what is being attempted here and yet it's not working?
>>> That is my understanding:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:15 -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
>>>> It seems that I encountered a bug in 'svnlook pl --revprop': it fails with
>>>> the following message:
>>>>
>>>> $ svnlook pl --revprop -t 10547-86b /svn/test-svn
>>>> svnlook: Invalid revision number '-1'
>>> I can replicate this error message with svn 1.6.9 on Mac OS X. "svnlook
>>> pl -t" works fine, but "svnlook pl --revprop -t" complains that revision
>>> number
>>> '-1' is invalid, though I specified a correct in-progress transaction
>>> number.
>>
>> Okay -- sorry for the noise, then. That was my fault for not parsing the
>> conversation correctly.
>>
>> Yes, this I believe this is a bug. (I'll even grant that using an option
>> named "--revprops" does nothing for the illusion that revisions aren't
>> really just "special transactions".)
>
> I think the attached patch fixes this, and I plan to commit as much after
> some more testing.
>
> --
> C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net>
> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
>
> * subversion/svnlook/main.c
> (do_plist): Correctly handle invocations of 'svnlook plist --revprop' when
> used with '-t TXN_NAME' instead of '-r REV'.
>
> Reported by: Alexey Neyman <stilor{_AT_}att.net>
> --This line, and those below, will be ignored--
>
> Index: subversion/svnlook/main.c
> ===================================================================
> --- subversion/svnlook/main.c (revision 916775)
> +++ subversion/svnlook/main.c (working copy)
> @@ -1685,11 +1685,16 @@
> SVN_ERR(verify_path(&kind, root, path, pool));
> SVN_ERR(svn_fs_node_proplist(&props, root, path, pool));
> }
> - else
> + else if (c->is_revision)
> {
> SVN_ERR(svn_fs_revision_proplist(&props, c->fs, c->rev_id, pool));
> revprop = TRUE;
> }
> + else
> + {
> + SVN_ERR(svn_fs_txn_proplist(&props, c->txn, pool));
> + revprop = TRUE;
> + }
>
> if (xml)
> {
> @@ -1703,8 +1708,16 @@
> if (revprop)
> {
> /* "<revprops ...>" */
> - svn_xml_make_open_tag(&sb, pool, svn_xml_normal, "revprops",
> - "rev", revstr, NULL);
> + if (c->is_revision)
> + {
> + svn_xml_make_open_tag(&sb, pool, svn_xml_normal, "revprops",
> + "rev", revstr, NULL);
> + }
> + else
> + {
> + svn_xml_make_open_tag(&sb, pool, svn_xml_normal, "revprops",
> + "txn", c->txn_name, NULL);
> + }
> }
He, thanks for also fixing the XML part. I was in fact, working on a
regression test, as none of the svnlook options seem to be tested on
transactions.
I'll commit the test when I'm finished and add it to your backport proposal.
Lieven
