Greg, Sounds good. I'll take another look at blame 7, probably early next week.
Best, -Hyrum On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > Hyrum, > > This fixes all tests except for blame 7 [on the ev2-export branch]. > > There is a potential hole, noted in the comments which I may try to > write a test for. > > Cheers, > -g > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:47 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Author: gstein >> Date: Fri May 18 20:47:43 2012 >> New Revision: 1340245 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1340245&view=rev >> Log: >> Improve the detection of whether a node can be created at a given path. >> >> Specifically, if the path represents a child from an ancestor's copy, >> move, or rotate, then we should allow further changes to that child. >> Since the child is uncommitted, the REPLACES_REV will be >> SVN_INVALID_REVNUM. >> >> * subversion/libsvn_fs/editor.c: >> (can_create): update docstring. add ancestor checks for *-here ops. >> >> Modified: >> subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/editor.c >> >> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/editor.c >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/editor.c?rev=1340245&r1=1340244&r2=1340245&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/editor.c (original) >> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/editor.c Fri May 18 20:47:43 2012 >> @@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ >> >> #include "fs-loader.h" >> >> +#include "private/svn_fspath.h" >> + >> >> struct edit_baton { >> /* The transaction associated with this editor. */ >> @@ -269,21 +271,56 @@ can_modify(svn_fs_root_t *txn_root, >> >> >> /* Can we create a node at FSPATH in TXN_ROOT? If something already exists >> - at that path, then the client is out of date. */ >> + at that path, then the client MAY be out of date. We then have to see if >> + the path was created/modified in this transaction. IOW, it is new and >> + can be replaced without problem. >> + >> + Note: the editor protocol disallows double-modifications. This is to >> + ensure somebody does not accidentally overwrite another file due to >> + being out-of-date. */ >> static svn_error_t * >> can_create(svn_fs_root_t *txn_root, >> const char *fspath, >> apr_pool_t *scratch_pool) >> { >> svn_node_kind_t kind; >> + const char *cur_fspath; >> >> SVN_ERR(svn_fs_check_path(&kind, txn_root, fspath, scratch_pool)); >> - if (kind != svn_node_none) >> - return svn_error_createf(SVN_ERR_FS_OUT_OF_DATE, NULL, >> - _("'%s' already exists, so may be out" >> - " of date; try updating"), >> - fspath); >> - return SVN_NO_ERROR; >> + if (kind == svn_node_none) >> + return SVN_NO_ERROR; >> + >> + /* ### I'm not sure if this works perfectly. We might have an ancestor >> + ### that was modified as a result of a change on a cousin. We might >> + ### misinterpret that as a *-here node which brought along this >> + ### child. Need to write a test to verify. We may also be able to >> + ### test the ancestor to determine if it has been *-here in this >> + ### txn, or just a simple modification. */ >> + >> + /* Are any of the parents copied/moved/rotated-here? */ >> + for (cur_fspath = fspath; >> + strlen(cur_fspath) > 1; /* not the root */ >> + cur_fspath = svn_fspath__dirname(cur_fspath, scratch_pool)) >> + { >> + svn_revnum_t created_rev; >> + >> + SVN_ERR(svn_fs_node_created_rev(&created_rev, txn_root, cur_fspath, >> + scratch_pool)); >> + if (!SVN_IS_VALID_REVNUM(created_rev)) >> + { >> + /* The node has no created revision, meaning it is uncommitted. >> + Thus, it was created in this transaction, or it has already >> + been modified in some way (implying it has already passed a >> + modification check. */ >> + /* ### verify the node has been *-here ?? */ >> + return SVN_NO_ERROR; >> + } >> + } >> + >> + return svn_error_createf(SVN_ERR_FS_OUT_OF_DATE, NULL, >> + _("'%s' already exists, so may be out" >> + " of date; try updating"), >> + fspath); >> } >> >> >> >> -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com/
