Prabhu Gnana Sundar wrote on 14 December 2012:
> On 12/10/2012 08:15 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Prabhu Gnana Sundar
>>
>>> This patch is a follow up of the long discussion we had in thread [1].
>>
>> Please will you summarize the issues that were raised in the previous
>> discussion and how you have chosen to proceed. I'm thinking in
>> particular of the discussion about how the output is notified -- how
>> to display each error, on what output stream, and what to print at the
>> end of the whole verification and what exit code to return. There may
>> have been other issues too.
>
> Thanks Julian,
>
> Before this patch:
> -----------------------
>
> When we run svnadmin verify on a repo, the verification process would stop
> once
> a failure/corruption is found. The error is notified via the error stream and
> the exit code would be 1.
> Upon successful verification of each revision of the repo "Verified
> revision r" is also notified via the stderr stream and the exit code is 0.
>
>
> Eg:
>
> $ svnadmin verify
> subversion/tests/cmdline/svn-test-work/repositories/svnadmin_tests-31
> svnadmin: E200004: Could not convert '' into a number
>
>
> After this patch:
> ---------------------
>
> When we run svnadmin verify on a repo, the verification process would stop
> once
> a failure/corruption is found. The error is notified via the error stream and
> the exit code would be 1. The error stream would end as "svnadmin: E165005:
> Repository 'reponame' failed to verify".
> The behaviour is unchanged for successful verification.
>
> When we run svnadmin verify --keep-going, the verification process continues
> after detecting any failure/corruption. The failure is reported for whichever
> revision it is found. The error message is notified via the stderr stream.
> The
> successful verification of revisions will also be reported via the stderr
> stream
> (no change in behaviour of notifying success). The repo verification failure
> will be notified at the end as "svnadmin: E165005: Repository
> 'reponame' failed to verify". The exit code is 1.
>
> Eg:
>
> $ svnadmin verify
> subversion/tests/cmdline/svn-test-work/repositories/svnadmin_tests-31
> svnadmin: E200004: Could not convert '' into a number
> svnadmin: E165005: Repository
> 'subversion/tests/cmdline/svn-test-work/repositories/svnadmin_tests-31'
> failed to verify
>
>
> $ svnadmin verify
> subversion/tests/cmdline/svn-test-work/repositories/svnadmin_tests-31
> --keep-going
> * Verified revision 0.
> * Verified revision 1.
> * Verified revision 2.
> * Verified revision 3.
> * Verified revision 4.
> * Verified revision 5.
> * Error verifying revision 6.
> svnadmin: E200004: Could not convert '' into a number
> svnadmin: E165005: Repository
> 'subversion/tests/cmdline/svn-test-work/repositories/svnadmin_tests-31'
> failed to verify
Thanks, Prabhu, for explaining this.
That sounds good. I was surprised to learn that the progress notifications ("*
Verified...") were already going to stderr.
(I was meaning to review the patch before sending this reply, but I have not
got around to it yet, and now I see you have just sent a new version in
response to Daniel's comments.)
> Earlier, Mike suggested to notify the errors in both stdout and stderr stream
> so
> that they would be independently valuable to the user.
> But I have not notified the errors on both the streams, rather only via the
> stderr stream, because the error notification would appear twice for each
> failure when the verification is run from the command line. Thoughts ?
The way I understood C-Mike's suggestion was that all the "* Verified revision
R" and "* Error verifying revision R" messages (and probably the final summary
line too) would go to stdout, whereas all the "svnadmin: Exxxxxx: ..." messages
would go to stderr. Therefore the output would appear just like you describe
above -- except perhaps within a given revision the error messages might come
before the "Failed to verify revision" message instead of after it.
However, that suggestion is something we can consider as a possible future
change -- it seems to me that your solution is fine.
- Julian
