[PATCH] Add a test to cover the regression introduced in r1075802

[Daniel Becroft]

Index: ../subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py
===================================================================
--- ../subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py (revision 1080126)
+++ ../subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py (working copy)
@@ -16586,6 +16586,102 @@
raise svntest.Failure("beta is not marked as executable after

commit")

+ "dry run merge should not create conflict resolution files"

This long description line triggers the AssertionError about the test
docstring needing to be 50 characters or less.

+ svntest.actions.run_and_verify_merge(other_wc, '2', '3',
+ sbox.repo_url, None,
+ expected_output,
+ expected_mergeinfo_output,
+ expected_elision_output,
+ expected_disk,
+ expected_status,
+ expected_skip,
+ None, None, None, None, None,
+ True, True,

'--allow-mixed-revisions',

+ other_wc)

As this is a test of a dry-run merge, I find the use of
run_and_verify_merge() a bit obfuscating. I think it'd be better to
explicitly run a --dry-run merge so that it's obvious that what you're
testing is exactly that.
And, as I said elsethread, the patch didn't even apply to HEAD. So that
needs to be reworked.

Hi Mike,
One of the advantages in using run_and_verify_merge() is that if dry_run =
TRUE, it does it's own check to ensure that the working copy is not
modified. IMO, this is better than explicitly building the tree prior to the
merge, and then re-checking the merge.
However, I'm finding that running an explicit merge works, but running
run_and_verify_merge() does not (conflict files still get created).

Never mind, I just found the problem. Using run_and_verify_merge() with
dry_run = True runs both a dry-run and a wet-run update. Since the wet-run
update always gets run, the conflict files always get created.

Cheers,
Daniel B.

[Daniel Becroft]

Index: ../subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py
===================================================================
--- ../subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py (revision 1080126)
+++ ../subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py (working copy)
@@ -16586,6 +16586,102 @@
raise svntest.Failure("beta is not marked as executable after

commit")

+ "dry run merge should not create conflict resolution files"

This long description line triggers the AssertionError about the test
docstring needing to be 50 characters or less.

+ svntest.actions.run_and_verify_merge(other_wc, '2', '3',
+ sbox.repo_url, None,
+ expected_output,
+ expected_mergeinfo_output,
+ expected_elision_output,
+ expected_disk,
+ expected_status,
+ expected_skip,
+ None, None, None, None, None,
+ True, True,

'--allow-mixed-revisions',

+ other_wc)

As this is a test of a dry-run merge, I find the use of
run_and_verify_merge() a bit obfuscating. I think it'd be better to
explicitly run a --dry-run merge so that it's obvious that what you're
testing is exactly that.
And, as I said elsethread, the patch didn't even apply to HEAD. So that
needs to be reworked.

Hi Mike,

One of the advantages in using run_and_verify_merge() is that if dry_run =
TRUE, it does it's own check to ensure that the working copy is not
modified. IMO, this is better than explicitly building the tree prior to the
merge, and then re-checking the merge.

However, I'm finding that running an explicit merge works, but running
run_and_verify_merge() does not (conflict files still get created).

Cheers,
Daniel B.

[Kamesh Jayachandran]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Daniel Becroft
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:50 AM, C. Michael Pilato

Index: ../subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py

===================================================================

--- ../subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py

(revision 1080126)

+++ ../subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py

(working copy)

@@ -16586,6 +16586,102 @@
raise svntest.Failure("beta is not marked as executable

after commit")

+ "dry run merge should not create conflict resolution files"

This long description line triggers the AssertionError about the test
docstring needing to be 50 characters or less.

+ svntest.actions.run_and_verify_merge(other_wc, '2', '3',
+ sbox.repo_url, None,
+ expected_output,
+

expected_mergeinfo_output,

+ expected_elision_output,
+ expected_disk,
+ expected_status,
+ expected_skip,
+ None, None, None,

None, None,

+ True, True,

'--allow-mixed-revisions',

+ other_wc)

As this is a test of a dry-run merge, I find the use of
run_and_verify_merge() a bit obfuscating. I think it'd be better to
explicitly run a --dry-run merge so that it's obvious that what you're
testing is exactly that.
And, as I said elsethread, the patch didn't even apply to
HEAD. So that
needs to be reworked.
Hi Mike,
One of the advantages in using run_and_verify_merge() is that if
dry_run = TRUE, it does it's own check to ensure that the working
copy is not modified. IMO, this is better than explicitly building
the tree prior to the merge, and then re-checking the merge.
However, I'm finding that running an explicit merge works, but
running run_and_verify_merge() does not (conflict files still get
created).
Never mind, I just found the problem. Using run_and_verify_merge()
with dry_run = True runs both a dry-run and a wet-run update. Since
the wet-run update always gets run, the conflict files always get
created.

So the test-case is fine right.. I mean.. The dry_run checks are
independent of the wet run.. They happen before the wet run happens..
Is there anything else that we need to add to this test?
I've attached an updated patch that should now apply without hiccups..
Regards,
Arwin Arni

I'm sorry I overlooked the docstring length again.. Here's the
corrected patch.
Regards,
Arwin Arni

Thanks Arwin. Committed your patch in r1081390.

With regards
Kamesh Jayachandran