On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Hyrum K Wright
<hyrum.wri...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Joe Swatosh <joe.swat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Joe Swatosh <joe.swat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Joe Swatosh <joe.swat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Philip Martin
>>>> <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> ****************
>>
>> Restore failing Ruby bindings tests failing since r1293375.
>>
>> * subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/test_info.rb
>> (test_diff): Remove assertions testing implementation details that
>> have changed.
>>
>> ****************
>>
>>
>> Index: subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/test_info.rb
>> ===================================================================
>> --- subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/test_info.rb (revision 1294254)
>> +++ subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/test_info.rb (working copy)
>> @@ -217,7 +217,6 @@
>> assert_equal([file1, file2, file4].sort, keys[0..-2])
>> assert_match(/\A#{file5}/, file5_key)
>> assert(info.diffs[file1].has_key?(:modified))
>> - assert(info.diffs[file1].has_key?(:property_changed))
>> assert(info.diffs[file2].has_key?(:modified))
>> assert(info.diffs[file4].has_key?(:added))
>> assert(info.diffs[file4].has_key?(:property_changed))
>> @@ -230,8 +229,6 @@
>> assert_equal(0, info.diffs[file4][:added].deleted_line)
>> assert_equal(0, info.diffs[file5_key][:copied].added_line)
>> assert_equal(0, info.diffs[file5_key][:copied].deleted_line)
>> - assert_equal("Name: #{file1_prop_key}\n - #{file1_prop_value}\n",
>> - info.diffs[file1][:property_changed].body)
>> assert_equal("Name: #{file4_prop_key}\n + #{file4_prop_value}\n",
>> info.diffs[file4][:property_changed].body)
>> assert_equal(commit_info.revision, info.revision)
>
> That would certainly fix the test failures, in that they wouldn't be detected.
>
> Are you implying the current (without this patch) ruby tests are
> testing implementation details, as well as results, and that's the
> reason this change is needed?
>
> -Hyrum
>
>
Yup that is exactly what I'm implying. You may recall during wc-ng
development that there were many failing Ruby bindings tests. There
were three broad categories of failures: binding or binding test
errors, unintentional changes to how the wc library worked, and tests
of wc implementation among the bindings tests. My recollection of that
time was that the problems were pretty evenly distributed into those
categories. When I asked him about it, my memory of what kou said was
that subversion implementation needed testing.
WRT this patch, when I sent it, I thought this was an implementation
test, but on reflection I am not so sure. I will look into it again
when the weekend comes (earliest that my schedule allows). If anyone
can resolve this correctly sooner, I encourage them to do so.
--
Joe
