Greg Stein wrote: > Why are tests failing because of the different values?
I think it's not because the op_depth value is different, but because creating a row with a different op_depth now in some cases means creating an *additional* row, and the rest of the code is not yet prepared for finding two or more WORKING rows for the same node. Something like that. - Julian > Philip stated that we weren't really examining the values. That "zero > vs non-zero" was the only real test so far. So why does inserting > other values break things? That seems to be a more interesting problem > to solve than simply throwing up our collective hands and #ifdef'ing > the values out (along with that additional complexity!) > > Cheers, > -g > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 07:58, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Author: julianfoad > > Revision: 1001678 > > Modified property: svn:log > > > > Modified: svn:log at Mon Sep 27 11:58:18 2010 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > --- svn:log (original) > > +++ svn:log Mon Sep 27 11:58:18 2010 > > @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ > > +Guard some ongoing op_depth work inside a new conditional: > > SVN_WC__OP_DEPTH. > > +Guards the change made in r1000557, but not yet the similar changes made in > > +r1000955. These op_depth changes are causing test failures, and the fixes > > +are expected to be extensive. > > + > > +Also document an existing function. > > + > > * subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c > > (construct_like_arg): Add a doc string. Fix naming of the pool arg. > > + (svn_wc__db_op_add_directory, svn_wc__db_op_add_file, > > + svn_wc__db_op_add_symlink): Change op_depth back to a hard-coded '2' > > + unless SVN_WC__OP_DEPTH is defined. > > > >
