On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Joe Swatosh <joe.swat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I committed the patch in r1302524. Feel free to update it as you feel
necessary.
-Hyrum
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com/
