On 17.03.2014, at 18:01, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Torsten Bögershausen <tbo...@web.de> writes: > >> On 2014-03-14 23.09, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> * ap/remote-hg-skip-null-bookmarks (2014-01-02) 1 commit >>> - remote-hg: do not fail on invalid bookmarks >>> >>> Reported to break tests ($gmane/240005) >>> Expecting a reroll. >> I wonder what should happen here. >> The change breaks all the tests in test-hg-hg-git.sh >> (And the breakage may prevent us from detecting other breakages) >> >> The ideal situation would be to have an extra test case for the problem >> which we try to fix with this patch. >> >> Antoine, is there any way to make your problem reproducable ? >> And based on that, to make a patch which passes all test cases ? > > After re-reading the thread briefly (there're just five messages) > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/239797/focus=240069
For some reason, that link does not contain all messages from that conversation (unfortunately, I have seen GMane do that on multiple occasions. I hence try not to rely on it for reviewing email history -- I just don't trust it). In particular, it misses this crucial post: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/239830 I call it crucial because it describes how to make a reproducible test cases out of this, in which a legitimate hg repository leads to a remote-hg error preventing the user from normal operation. > > I think the "breakage" the patch tries to fix seems to be of dubious > nature in the first place ("I don't know how I ended-up with such a > bookmark", Antoine says in $gmane/239800), and it has been in > "Expecting a reroll" state in response to "I will try to come-up > with an improved version" in $gmane/240069 but nothing has happened > for a few months. > > At this point I think it would be OK for me to discard the topic > (without prejudice); if the root cause of the issue (if there is > one) and a proper fix is discovered in the future, the topic can > come back with a fresh patch, but it appears to me that keeping the > above patch in my tree would not help anybody. The (or at least "a") root cause has actually been discovered. Would a patch that adds an xfail test case for it be acceptable? As to the why the proposed patch causes test failures: I think this is due to the fact that remote-hg inserts a fake "master" branch (resp. "bookmark" in the hg terminology). Now, in those test cases, a hg repository gets created that actually contains a "null" bookmark named "master". When the proposed fix for the problem is added, this bookmarks gets ignored. But at that point, remote-hg already determined that there is a hg bookmark named "master", and adjusts how it works accordingly -- when we then remove that bookmarks, things go awry. But I might be wrong here, and in any case, did not yet have time to come up with a proper fix. What I do have is a test case, that I could turn into an xfail test. As a matter of fact, I a know a few more bugs in remote-hg for which I could produce xfail test cases. Of course I'd prefer to put them in together with a fix, but I don't know when I can get to that, if ever. So, would such changes be welcome?
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail