On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Ah, now I understand. In my opinion, the current output is just as bogus as before (if more verbose), so there does not exist a regression. In other words, the test has been PASS'ing for quite some time, even though it reported these same nodes as rev=0, which is obviously bogus. If it PASS'd under those conditions, why not now? Also, while I'm not planning on fixing this long-standing issue with the command line client imminently, I'd still like the tests to pass so as to catch other issues which may come up as I muck with info. -Hyrum
