Dmitry Pavlenko wrote on Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 19:03:30 +0200:
> I'm attaching a reproducing test.
> 

Thanks for the test!

> I'm not 100% sure that 
> 
> [
>     'Index: %s\n' % sbox.path('iota'),
>     '===================================================================\n',
>     '--- %s\t(revision 1)\n' % sbox.path('iota'),
>     '+++ %s\t(working copy)\n' % sbox.path('iota'),
>     '@@ -1 +1 @@\n',
>     '-This is the file \'iota\'.\n',
>     '+link iota\n',
>     '\ No newline at end of file\n',
>     '\n',
>     'Property changes on: iota\n',
>     '___________________________________________________________________\n',
>     'Added: svn:special\n',
>     '## -0,0 +1 ##\n',
>     '+*\n',
>     '\ No newline at end of property\n',
>   ]
> 
> is the expected output but definitely the diff command shouldn't fail with 
> exit code 1 as it does now.

There isn't a patch flying around that produces this output, right?

In this case, I suggest that we add a regression test that simply expects any
output and exit code zero — that's «run_and_verify_svn(svntest.verify.AnyOutput,
[], 'diff', wc_dir)» — and add a comment reminding us to write a more explicit
expectation once the issue is fixed.  This would make sure the patch start
passing as soon as we change the behaviour, even if the expected output
predicted is a little off.

> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/diff_tests.py    (working copy)
> @@ -5201,7 +5201,36 @@ def diff_summary_repo_wc_local_copy_unmodified(sbo
>                      '--old=' + sbox.ospath('iota') + '@HEAD',
>                      '--new=' + sbox.ospath('iota2'))
>  
> +def diff_file_replaced_by_symlink(sbox):

There should be an "@XFail()" decorator here, so `make test` (and
`./diff_tests.py`) still exit 0 despite this test (X)FAILing.

> +  "diff base vs working: symlink replaces a file"
> +  sbox.build()

Since this test doesn't commit, it can pass read_only=True, then build() would
be cheaper.

> +  svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn([
> +    '\ No newline at end of file\n',

Please don't add new instances of backslash-space; it's an undefined/deprecated
syntax that generates warnings in newer Pythons.  See r1834787.

Cheers,

Daniel

Reply via email to