On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 15:35, Hyrum K Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 15:04, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Author: hwright >>> Date: Tue May 3 19:04:24 2011 >>> New Revision: 1099193 >>> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1099193&view=rev >>> Log: >>> For info, don't fake a completely bogus revision for added nodes, just >>> report an invalid revision. >>> >>> In updating the tests, I noticed we report "Resource is not under version >>> control" in the XML for nodes with invalid revnums. While this isn't >>> strictly true for added nodes, I'll leave that fix for future change. >> >> Eh? Shouldn't those tests be marked with XFail, rather than BAD OUTPUT? > > I'm not sure what you mean. The tests currently pass. > > My point was that our xml generation assumes an invalid revnum means > that thing isn't versioned. While added nodes now correctly report an > invalid revnum, they are versioned (or at least we've historically > treated them as such, even though they haven't yet been committed to > the repository). > > So spitting out "this thing is not versioned" isn't technically > correct, since the node is still under Subversion's control, but it's > the best we do right now. I claim the problem is orthogonal to the > above change, and should be fixed in the command line client.
You updated the xml test to match the bad output. I think the test should be marked XFail (and the output change reverted) until we can get the cmdline client fixed to provide the proper output for added nodes. Cheers, -g
