On May 15, 2012 6:04 PM, "Hyrum K Wright" <[email protected]> wrote: >... > This research comes as a result of the final test failures on the > ev2-export branch for commit: tree conflicts tests 4 and 8. Both of > these set up the tree conflict scenario, and in doing so occasionally > expect an out-of-date error, which we aren't currently generating. > For instance, test 4 creates a file in r3, updates the working copy to > r2 (thereby deleting the file), does a local copy to the same location > as the previously created file, and then attempts to commit. The > commit should fail, but the FS editor isn't returning any out-of-date > errors.
Right. The add/copy should fail because the node already exists. I relied on that failure, rather than issuing an OOD. We could add that empty-target verification. > > I think the problem is that we aren't calling can_modify() enough, or > with the right revision argument. For instance, in the case of a > copy, we only call can_modify() on the destination path if we are > replacing it. It feels like we should ensure we can modify the target > in all instances, not just if we need to replace it. This may also > apply to other editor callbacks in this file. Sure. When REPLACES_REV is INVALID, we can call check_path and verify nothing exists. Seem about right? Cheers, -g
