mercurial provider patch

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

mercurial provider patch

Ryan Daum-2
During further use/testing of the mercurial provider (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag" command was missing.  I've just fixed this.

Please see the patch attached to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319

Thank you,
  Ryan Daum

--
Ryan Daum
[hidden email]
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mercurial provider patch

Emmanuel Venisse-2
I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.

You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on the hg provider

For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in SCM-319 wasn't correct (look at first lines)

I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't have your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.

Emmanuel

Ryan Daum a écrit :

> During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
> (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag" command was
> missing.  I've just fixed this.
>
> Please see the patch attached to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>
> Thank you,
>   Ryan Daum
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mercurial provider patch

Ryan Daum-2
Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the commits you checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0, so I can't actually run through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me instructions on how to get the latest checkout to build?

What specifically fails on the tck?  Please provide surefire results, as I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.

Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from the first lines how it is invalid.

Ryan

On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <[hidden email]> wrote:
I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.

You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on the hg provider

For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in SCM-319 wasn't correct (look at first lines)

I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't have your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.

Emmanuel

Ryan Daum a écrit :

> During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
> (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag" command was
> missing.  I've just fixed this.
>
> Please see the patch attached to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>
> Thank you,
>   Ryan Daum
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073




--
Ryan Daum
[hidden email]
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mercurial provider patch

Emmanuel Venisse-2


Ryan Daum a écrit :
> Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the commits you
> checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
> org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0, so I can't actually run
> through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me instructions on
> how to get the latest checkout to build?

My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/)

>
> What specifically fails on the tck?  Please provide surefire results, as
> I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.

the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test set: org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2 sec <<< FAILURE!
testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest)  Time elapsed: 1.985 sec  <<< ERROR!
java.lang.NullPointerException
        at org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:127)
        at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
        at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
        at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
        at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:208)
        at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute(JUnitTestSet.java:213)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess(SurefireBooter.java:290)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)


>
> Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from the first
> lines how it is invalid.

Index: maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
===================================================================
--- maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java (revision 0)
+++ maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag;
+package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;

  /*
   * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
@@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
   * under the License.
   */

-import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils;
+import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;

...

It isn't a patch for a file creation.

Emmanuel

>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>
>     You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on the hg
>     provider
>
>     For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in SCM-319 wasn't
>     correct (look at first lines)
>
>     I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't have
>     your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
>
>     Emmanuel
>
>     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>      > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
>      > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag" command was
>      > missing.  I've just fixed this.
>      >
>      > Please see the patch attached to
>     http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>      >
>      > Thank you,
>      >   Ryan Daum
>      >
>      > --
>      > Ryan Daum
>      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mercurial provider patch

Ryan Daum-2
So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're saying is unless you branched (did you?  where can I check out the branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in before the release.

Ryan

On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <[hidden email]> wrote:


Ryan Daum a écrit :
> Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the commits you
> checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
> org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't actually run
> through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me instructions on
> how to get the latest checkout to build?

My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/ )

>
> What specifically fails on the tck?  Please provide surefire results, as
> I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.

the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test set: org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2 sec <<< FAILURE!
testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest)  Time elapsed: 1.985 sec  <<< ERROR!
java.lang.NullPointerException
        at org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:127)
        at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
        at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
        at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
        at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java:208)
        at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java :39)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess (SurefireBooter.java:290)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)


>
> Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from the first
> lines how it is invalid.

Index: maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
===================================================================
--- maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java       (revision 0)
+++ maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java       (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
+package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;

  /*
   * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
@@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
   * under the License.
   */

-import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
+import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;

...

It isn't a patch for a file creation.

Emmanuel

>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>
>     You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on the hg
>     provider
>
>     For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in SCM-319 wasn't
>     correct (look at first lines)
>
>     I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't have
>     your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
>
>     Emmanuel
>
>     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>      > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
>      > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag" command was
>      > missing.  I've just fixed this.
>      >
>      > Please see the patch attached to
>     http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>      >
>      > Thank you,
>      >   Ryan Daum
>      >
>      > --
>      > Ryan Daum
>      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073




--
Ryan Daum
[hidden email]
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mercurial provider patch

Ryan Daum-2
What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag arbitrary files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current revision of the entire repository.  The parent tck test seems to require the ability to tag specific files only.

Ryan

On 5/22/07, Ryan Daum <[hidden email]> wrote:
So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're saying is unless you branched (did you?  where can I check out the branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in before the release.

Ryan


On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <[hidden email]> wrote:


Ryan Daum a écrit :
> Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the commits you
> checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
> org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't actually run
> through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me instructions on
> how to get the latest checkout to build?

My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (<a href="http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/ )

>
> What specifically fails on the tck?  Please provide surefire results, as
> I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.

the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test set: org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2 sec <<< FAILURE!
testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest)  Time elapsed: 1.985 sec  <<< ERROR!
java.lang.NullPointerException
        at org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:127)
        at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
        at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
        at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
        at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java:208)
        at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java :39)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
        at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess (SurefireBooter.java:290)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
        at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)


>
> Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from the first
> lines how it is invalid.

Index: maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
===================================================================
--- maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java       (revision 0)
+++ maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java       (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
+package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;

  /*
   * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
@@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
   * under the License.
   */

-import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
+import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;

...

It isn't a patch for a file creation.

Emmanuel

>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>
>     You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on the hg
>     provider
>
>     For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in SCM-319 wasn't
>     correct (look at first lines)
>
>     I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't have
>     your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
>
>     Emmanuel
>
>     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>      > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
>      > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag" command was
>      > missing.  I've just fixed this.
>      >
>      > Please see the patch attached to
>     <a href="http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>      >
>      > Thank you,
>      >   Ryan Daum
>      >
>      > --
>      > Ryan Daum
>      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073




--
Ryan Daum
[hidden email]
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073



--
Ryan Daum
[hidden email]
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mercurial provider patch

Emmanuel Venisse-2
In reply to this post by Ryan Daum-2
You can checkout the 1.0 tag (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/scm/tags/maven-scm-1.0/) or the revision before the release creation

Emmanuel

Ryan Daum a écrit :

> So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're saying
> is unless you branched (did you?  where can I check out the branch),
> there's no way at all that my changes can make it in before the release.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>      > Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the commits you
>      > checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
>      > org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't actually run
>      > through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
>     instructions on
>      > how to get the latest checkout to build?
>
>     My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build when
>     the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
>     You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts
>     (http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
>     <http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
>
>      >
>      > What specifically fails on the tck?  Please provide surefire
>     results, as
>      > I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
>
>     the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
>
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Test set:
>     org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 2
>     sec <<< FAILURE!
>     testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest)  Time
>     elapsed: 1.985 sec  <<< ERROR!
>     java.lang.NullPointerException
>             at
>     org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
>             at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
>             at
>     sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>             at
>     sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>             at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
>             at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
>             at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:127)
>             at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
>             at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
>             at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
>             at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
>             at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java:208)
>             at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
>             at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
>             at
>     sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
>     :39)
>             at
>     sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>             at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>             at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
>     (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
>             at
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
>             at
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
>     (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
>             at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
>             at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
>             at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
>     (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>             at
>     sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>             at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>             at
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
>     (SurefireBooter.java:290)
>             at
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>             at
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>
>
>      >
>      > Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from the
>     first
>      > lines how it is invalid.
>
>     Index:
>     maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
>     ===================================================================
>     ---
>     maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java      
>     (revision 0)
>     +++
>     maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java      
>     (working copy)
>     @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>     -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
>     +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
>
>       /*
>        * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
>     @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
>        * under the License.
>        */
>
>     -import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
>     +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
>
>     ...
>
>     It isn't a patch for a file creation.
>
>     Emmanuel
>      >
>      > Ryan
>      >
>      > On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>      >
>      >     You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on the hg
>      >     provider
>      >
>      >     For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in SCM-319
>     wasn't
>      >     correct (look at first lines)
>      >
>      >     I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't have
>      >     your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
>      >
>      >     Emmanuel
>      >
>      >     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>      >      > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
>      >      > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag"
>     command was
>      >      > missing.  I've just fixed this.
>      >      >
>      >      > Please see the patch attached to
>      >     http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>      >      >
>      >      > Thank you,
>      >      >   Ryan Daum
>      >      >
>      >      > --
>      >      > Ryan Daum
>      >      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> <mailto:
>      >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>      >      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>      >      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > --
>      > Ryan Daum
>      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: mercurial provider patch

Emmanuel Venisse-2
In reply to this post by Ryan Daum-2
It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that must contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know with the hg tag command the list of tagged files by parsing the output.

Emmanuel

Ryan Daum a écrit :

> What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
> providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag arbitrary
> files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current revision
> of the entire repository.  The parent tck test seems to require the
> ability to tag specific files only.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're
>     saying is unless you branched (did you?  where can I check out the
>     branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in before
>     the release.
>
>     Ryan
>
>
>     On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         Ryan Daum a écrit :
>         >  Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the
>         commits you
>         >  checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
>         >  org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't
>         actually run
>         >  through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
>         instructions on
>         >  how to get the latest checkout to build?
>
>         My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build
>         when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
>         You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
>         http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
>         <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
>
>         >
>         >  What specifically fails on the tck?  Please provide surefire
>         results, as
>         >  I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
>
>         the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
>
>         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         Test set:
>         org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
>         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
>         2 sec <<< FAILURE!
>         testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest)  Time
>         elapsed: 1.985 sec  <<< ERROR!
>         java.lang.NullPointerException
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         Method)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
>                 at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
>                 at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:127)
>                 at
>         junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
>                 at
>         junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
>                 at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
>                 at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
>                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java:208)
>                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         Method)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
>         :39)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>                 at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
>         (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
>         (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
>                 at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         Method)
>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
>         (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
>         (SurefireBooter.java:290)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>
>
>         >
>         >  Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from
>         the first
>         >  lines how it is invalid.
>
>         Index:
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
>         ===================================================================
>         ---
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java      
>         (revision 0)
>         +++
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java      
>         (working copy)
>         @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>         -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
>         +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
>
>           /*
>            * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
>         @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
>            * under the License.
>            */
>
>         -import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
>         +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
>
>         ...
>
>         It isn't a patch for a file creation.
>
>         Emmanuel
>         >
>         >  Ryan
>         >
>         >  On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         >  <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>         wrote:
>         >
>         >     I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>         >
>         >     You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on
>         the hg
>         >     provider
>         >
>         >     For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in
>         SCM-319 wasn't
>         >     correct (look at first lines)
>         >
>         >     I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't
>         have
>         >     your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
>         >
>         >     Emmanuel
>         >
>         >     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>         >      > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
>         >      > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag"
>         command was
>         >      > missing.  I've just fixed this.
>         >      >
>         >      > Please see the patch attached to
>         >     http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>         >      >
>         >      > Thank you,
>         >      >   Ryan Daum
>         >      >
>         >      > --
>         >      > Ryan Daum
>         >      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> <mailto:
>         >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>         >      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>         >      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >  --
>         >  Ryan Daum
>         >  [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:
>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>         >  Senior Developer, Toronto
>         >  647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Ryan Daum
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     Senior Developer, Toronto
>     647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: mercurial provider patch

Ryan Daum-2
No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of tagged files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes sense that the Tck test should require that a provider return a list like this in this case.  I'm very skeptical of making the provider's tag command perform an additional operation to list all the files in the repository given that it already is doing two operations: tag and push.

Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how meaningful this test is.  I'm of the mind to say: just remove the test from the test suite.  I have manually tested the functionality and know that it works, and I think this feature is pretty critical for a 1.0 release which includes the Mercurial provider.

Your call,
Ryan

On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <[hidden email]> wrote:
It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that must contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know with the hg tag command the list of tagged files by parsing the output.

Emmanuel

Ryan Daum a écrit :

> What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
> providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag arbitrary
> files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current revision
> of the entire repository.  The parent tck test seems to require the
> ability to tag specific files only.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're
>     saying is unless you branched (did you?  where can I check out the
>     branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in before
>     the release.
>
>     Ryan
>
>
>     On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         Ryan Daum a écrit :
>         >  Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the
>         commits you
>         >  checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
>         >  org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't
>         actually run
>         >  through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
>         instructions on
>         >  how to get the latest checkout to build?
>
>         My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build
>         when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
>         You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
>         http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
>         <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
>

>         >
>         >  What specifically fails on the tck?  Please provide surefire
>         results, as
>         >  I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
>
>         the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
>
>         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         Test set:
>         org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
>         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
>         2 sec <<< FAILURE!
>         testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest)  Time
>         elapsed: 1.985 sec  <<< ERROR!
>         java.lang.NullPointerException
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         Method)
>                 at

>         sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java :25)
>                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
>                 at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
>                 at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare( TestCase.java:127)
>                 at
>         junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
>                 at
>         junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
>                 at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
>                 at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
>                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java :208)
>                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         Method)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
>         :39)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>                 at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
>         (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
>         (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
>                 at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         Method)

>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
>         (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
>         (SurefireBooter.java:290)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main (SurefireBooter.java:818)
>
>
>         >
>         >  Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from
>         the first
>         >  lines how it is invalid.
>
>         Index:
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
>         ===================================================================
>         ---
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>         (revision 0)
>         +++
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>         (working copy)
>         @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>         -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
>         +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
>
>           /*

>            * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
>         @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
>            * under the License.
>            */
>
>         -import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
>         +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
>
>         ...
>
>         It isn't a patch for a file creation.
>
>         Emmanuel
>         >
>         >  Ryan
>         >
>         >  On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>

>         >  <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>         wrote:
>         >
>         >     I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>         >
>         >     You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on
>         the hg
>         >     provider
>         >
>         >     For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in
>         SCM-319 wasn't
>         >     correct (look at first lines)
>         >
>         >     I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't
>         have
>         >     your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
>         >
>         >     Emmanuel
>         >
>         >     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>         >      > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
>         >      > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag"
>         command was
>         >      > missing.  I've just fixed this.
>         >      >
>         >      > Please see the patch attached to
>         >     http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>         >      >
>         >      > Thank you,
>         >      >   Ryan Daum
>         >      >
>         >      > --
>         >      > Ryan Daum
>         >      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> <mailto:
>         >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>         >      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>         >      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >  --
>         >  Ryan Daum
>         >  [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:
>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>         >  Senior Developer, Toronto
>         >  647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>

>     --
>     Ryan Daum
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     Senior Developer, Toronto
>     647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073




--
Ryan Daum
[hidden email]
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: mercurial provider patch

Ryan Daum-2
Just want to point out one more thing, and that is that the class TagScmResult has two constructors, one of which accepts the list of tagged files and the other which does not, leaving that list null.  If the intention is that all SCM providers provide this list, then the other constructor should not exist.  Alternatively, if this is not the intention, then the Tck test should not require that this list be populated.

Ryan

On 5/22/07, Ryan Daum <[hidden email]> wrote:
No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of tagged files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes sense that the Tck test should require that a provider return a list like this in this case.  I'm very skeptical of making the provider's tag command perform an additional operation to list all the files in the repository given that it already is doing two operations: tag and push.

Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how meaningful this test is.  I'm of the mind to say: just remove the test from the test suite.  I have manually tested the functionality and know that it works, and I think this feature is pretty critical for a 1.0 release which includes the Mercurial provider.

Your call,
Ryan


On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <[hidden email]> wrote:
It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that must contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know with the hg tag command the list of tagged files by parsing the output.

Emmanuel

Ryan Daum a écrit :

> What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
> providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag arbitrary
> files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current revision
> of the entire repository.  The parent tck test seems to require the
> ability to tag specific files only.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're
>     saying is unless you branched (did you?  where can I check out the
>     branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in before
>     the release.
>
>     Ryan
>
>
>     On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         Ryan Daum a écrit :
>         >  Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the
>         commits you
>         >  checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
>         >  org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't
>         actually run
>         >  through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
>         instructions on
>         >  how to get the latest checkout to build?
>
>         My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build
>         when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
>         You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
>         <a href="http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
>         <<a href="http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
>

>         >
>         >  What specifically fails on the tck?  Please provide surefire
>         results, as
>         >  I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
>
>         the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
>
>         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         Test set:
>         org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
>         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
>         2 sec <<< FAILURE!
>         testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest)  Time
>         elapsed: 1.985 sec  <<< ERROR!
>         java.lang.NullPointerException
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         Method)
>                 at

>         sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java :25)
>                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
>                 at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
>                 at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare ( TestCase.java:127)
>                 at
>         junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
>                 at
>         junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
>                 at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
>                 at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
>                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java :208)
>                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         Method)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
>         :39)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>                 at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
>         (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
>         (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
>                 at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         Method)

>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
>         (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
>         (SurefireBooter.java:290)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main (SurefireBooter.java:818)
>
>
>         >
>         >  Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from
>         the first
>         >  lines how it is invalid.
>
>         Index:
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
>         ===================================================================
>         ---
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>         (revision 0)
>         +++
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>         (working copy)
>         @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>         -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
>         +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
>
>           /*

>            * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
>         @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
>            * under the License.
>            */
>
>         -import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
>         +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
>
>         ...
>
>         It isn't a patch for a file creation.
>
>         Emmanuel
>         >
>         >  Ryan
>         >
>         >  On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>

>         >  <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>         wrote:
>         >
>         >     I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>         >
>         >     You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on
>         the hg
>         >     provider
>         >
>         >     For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in
>         SCM-319 wasn't
>         >     correct (look at first lines)
>         >
>         >     I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't
>         have
>         >     your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
>         >
>         >     Emmanuel
>         >
>         >     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>         >      > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
>         >      > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag"
>         command was
>         >      > missing.  I've just fixed this.
>         >      >
>         >      > Please see the patch attached to
>         >     <a href="http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>         >      >
>         >      > Thank you,
>         >      >   Ryan Daum
>         >      >
>         >      > --
>         >      > Ryan Daum
>         >      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> <mailto:
>         >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>         >      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>         >      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >  --
>         >  Ryan Daum
>         >  [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:
>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>         >  Senior Developer, Toronto
>         >  647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>

>     --
>     Ryan Daum
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     Senior Developer, Toronto
>     647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073




--
Ryan Daum
[hidden email]
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073



--
Ryan Daum
[hidden email]
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: mercurial provider patch

Ryan Daum-2
I have a local version here which now passes all Tck tests by doing the inventory of the repository after the tag. 

Emmanuel, I can provide you with a patch, but can you give me advice on how to get Subversion to produce a diff file (from svn diff) that will do the right thing with creating new files?  All the output I get from svn diff seems to do the same as the patch I provided to you yesterday.

Ryan

On 5/22/07, Ryan Daum <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just want to point out one more thing, and that is that the class TagScmResult has two constructors, one of which accepts the list of tagged files and the other which does not, leaving that list null.  If the intention is that all SCM providers provide this list, then the other constructor should not exist.  Alternatively, if this is not the intention, then the Tck test should not require that this list be populated.

Ryan


On 5/22/07, Ryan Daum <[hidden email]> wrote:
No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of tagged files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes sense that the Tck test should require that a provider return a list like this in this case.  I'm very skeptical of making the provider's tag command perform an additional operation to list all the files in the repository given that it already is doing two operations: tag and push.

Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how meaningful this test is.  I'm of the mind to say: just remove the test from the test suite.  I have manually tested the functionality and know that it works, and I think this feature is pretty critical for a 1.0 release which includes the Mercurial provider.

Your call,
Ryan


On 5/22/07, Emmanuel Venisse <[hidden email]> wrote:
It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that must contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know with the hg tag command the list of tagged files by parsing the output.

Emmanuel

Ryan Daum a écrit :

> What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
> providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag arbitrary
> files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current revision
> of the entire repository.  The parent tck test seems to require the
> ability to tag specific files only.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're
>     saying is unless you branched (did you?  where can I check out the
>     branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in before
>     the release.
>
>     Ryan
>
>
>     On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         Ryan Daum a écrit :
>         >  Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the
>         commits you
>         >  checked in earlier today, because it complains about missing
>         >  org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't
>         actually run
>         >  through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
>         instructions on
>         >  how to get the latest checkout to build?
>
>         My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be build
>         when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the central repo.
>         You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
>         <a href="http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
>         <<a href="http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
>

>         >
>         >  What specifically fails on the tck?  Please provide surefire
>         results, as
>         >  I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
>
>         the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
>
>         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         Test set:
>         org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
>         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
>         2 sec <<< FAILURE!
>         testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest)  Time
>         elapsed: 1.985 sec  <<< ERROR!
>         java.lang.NullPointerException
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         Method)
>                 at

>         sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java :25)
>                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
>                 at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
>                 at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare ( TestCase.java:127)
>                 at
>         junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
>                 at
>         junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
>                 at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
>                 at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
>                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest (TestSuite.java :208)
>                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         Method)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
>         :39)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>                 at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
>         (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
>         (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
>                 at org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         Method)

>                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
>         (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>                 at
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
>         (SurefireBooter.java:290)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main (SurefireBooter.java:818)
>
>
>         >
>         >  Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't see from
>         the first
>         >  lines how it is invalid.
>
>         Index:
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
>         ===================================================================
>         ---
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>         (revision 0)
>         +++
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>         (working copy)
>         @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>         -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
>         +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
>
>           /*

>            * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
>         @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
>            * under the License.
>            */
>
>         -import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
>         +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
>
>         ...
>
>         It isn't a patch for a file creation.
>
>         Emmanuel
>         >
>         >  Ryan
>         >
>         >  On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>

>         >  <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>         wrote:
>         >
>         >     I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>         >
>         >     You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package -Ptck' on
>         the hg
>         >     provider
>         >
>         >     For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in
>         SCM-319 wasn't
>         >     correct (look at first lines)
>         >
>         >     I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if I don't
>         have
>         >     your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next version.
>         >
>         >     Emmanuel
>         >
>         >     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>         >      > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
>         >      > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag"
>         command was
>         >      > missing.  I've just fixed this.
>         >      >
>         >      > Please see the patch attached to
>         >     <a href="http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>         >      >
>         >      > Thank you,
>         >      >   Ryan Daum
>         >      >
>         >      > --
>         >      > Ryan Daum
>         >      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> <mailto:
>         >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>         >      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>         >      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >  --
>         >  Ryan Daum
>         >  [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:
>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>         >  Senior Developer, Toronto
>         >  647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>

>     --
>     Ryan Daum
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     Senior Developer, Toronto
>     647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073




--
Ryan Daum
[hidden email]
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073



--
Ryan Daum
[hidden email]
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073



--
Ryan Daum
[hidden email]
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Re: mercurial provider patch

Emmanuel Venisse-2
In reply to this post by Ryan Daum-2
If I remember it correctly, the constructor without the files list is to add scm errors with providers messages...
Maybe we must add more javadoc on this class or deprecate this constructor, but a result in success must have the list of tagged files.

Emmanuel

Ryan Daum a écrit :

> Just want to point out one more thing, and that is that the class
> TagScmResult has two constructors, one of which accepts the list of
> tagged files and the other which does not, leaving that list null.  If
> the intention is that all SCM providers provide this list, then the
> other constructor should not exist.  Alternatively, if this is not the
> intention, then the Tck test should not require that this list be
> populated.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of
>     tagged files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes sense
>     that the Tck test should require that a provider return a list like
>     this in this case.  I'm very skeptical of making the provider's tag
>     command perform an additional operation to list all the files in the
>     repository given that it already is doing two operations: tag and push.
>
>     Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how meaningful
>     this test is.  I'm of the mind to say: just remove the test from the
>     test suite.  I have manually tested the functionality and know that
>     it works, and I think this feature is pretty critical for a 1.0
>     release which includes the Mercurial provider.
>
>     Your call,
>     Ryan
>
>
>     On 5/22/07, * Emmanuel Venisse* <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>         It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that
>         must contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know
>         with the hg tag command the list of tagged files by parsing the
>         output.
>
>         Emmanuel
>
>         Ryan Daum a écrit :
>         >  What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
>         >  providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag
>         arbitrary
>         >  files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current
>         revision
>         >  of the entire repository.  The parent tck test seems to
>         require the
>         >  ability to tag specific files only.
>         >
>         >  Ryan
>         >
>         >  On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* < [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         >  <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>         >
>         >     So if the latest commit is the release correction... what
>         you're
>         >     saying is unless you branched (did you?  where can I check
>         out the
>         >     branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it
>         in before
>         >     the release.
>         >
>         >     Ryan
>         >
>         >
>         >     On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         >     <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >         Ryan Daum a écrit :
>         >         >  Firstly, it does not build at all after update given
>         the
>         >         commits you
>         >         >  checked in earlier today, because it complains about
>         missing
>         >         >  org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't
>         >         actually run
>         >         >  through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
>         >         instructions on
>         >         >  how to get the latest checkout to build?
>         >
>         >         My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be
>         build
>         >         when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the
>         central repo.
>         >         You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
>         >        
>         http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
>         <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>
>         >         <
>         http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
>         >
>         >         >
>         >         >  What specifically fails on the tck?  Please provide
>         surefire
>         >         results, as
>         >         >  I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
>         >
>         >         the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
>         >
>         >        
>         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         >         Test set:
>         >        
>         org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
>         >        
>         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         >
>         >         Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time
>         elapsed:
>         >         2 sec <<< FAILURE!
>         >        
>         testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest)  Time
>         >         elapsed: 1.985 sec  <<< ERROR!
>         >         java.lang.NullPointerException
>         >                 at
>         >        
>         org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
>         >                 at
>         sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         >         Method)
>         >                 at
>         >        
>         sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>         >                 at
>         >        
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java
>         :25)
>         >                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke
>         (Method.java:585)
>         >                 at
>         junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
>         >                 at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare (
>         TestCase.java:127)
>         >                 at
>         >         junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
>         >                 at
>         >        
>         junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
>         >                 at
>         junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
>         >                 at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
>         >                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest
>         (TestSuite.java :208)
>         >                 at
>         junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
>         >                 at
>         sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         >         Method)
>         >                 at
>         >        
>         sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
>         >         :39)
>         >                 at
>         >        
>         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>
>         >                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>         >                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
>         >         (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
>         >                 at
>         >        
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
>         >                 at
>         >        
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
>         >         (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
>         >                 at
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
>         >                 at
>         sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>         >         Method)
>         >                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
>         >         (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>         >                 at
>         >         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
>         (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>         >                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>         >                 at
>         >        
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
>         >         (SurefireBooter.java:290)
>         >                 at
>         >        
>         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>         >                 at
>         >         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main
>         (SurefireBooter.java:818)
>         >
>         >
>         >         >
>         >         >  Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't
>         see from
>         >         the first
>         >         >  lines how it is invalid.
>         >
>         >         Index:
>         >        
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>         >
>         >        
>         ===================================================================
>         >         ---
>         >        
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>         >         (revision 0)
>         >         +++
>         >        
>         maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
>         >         (working copy)
>         >         @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>         >         -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
>         >         +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
>         >
>         >           /*
>         >            * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
>         under one
>         >         @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
>         >            * under the License.
>         >            */
>         >
>         >         -import
>         org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
>         >         +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
>         >
>         >         ...
>         >
>         >         It isn't a patch for a file creation.
>         >
>         >         Emmanuel
>         >         >
>         >         >  Ryan
>         >         >
>         >         >  On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <
>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         >         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>         >         >  <mailto: [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto: [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>
>         >         wrote:
>         >         >
>         >         >     I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>         >         >
>         >         >     You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package
>         -Ptck' on
>         >         the hg
>         >         >     provider
>         >         >
>         >         >     For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in
>         >         SCM-319 wasn't
>         >         >     correct (look at first lines)
>         >         >
>         >         >     I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0,
>         if I don't
>         >         have
>         >         >     your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the
>         next version.
>         >         >
>         >         >     Emmanuel
>         >         >
>         >         >     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>         >         >      > During further use/testing of the mercurial
>         provider
>         >         >      > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the
>         "tag"
>         >         command was
>         >         >      > missing.  I've just fixed this.
>         >         >      >
>         >         >      > Please see the patch attached to
>         >         >     http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>         >         >      >
>         >         >      > Thank you,
>         >         >      >   Ryan Daum
>         >         >      >
>         >         >      > --
>         >         >      > Ryan Daum
>         >         >      > [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto: [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>         >         <mailto: [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto: [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>> <mailto:
>         >         >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>         >         <mailto: [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>
>         >         >      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>         >         >      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >  --
>         >         >  Ryan Daum
>         >         >  [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> <mailto:
>         >         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>         >         >  Senior Developer, Toronto
>         >         >  647.724.5232 x 2073
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >     --
>         >     Ryan Daum
>         >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:
>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>         >     Senior Developer, Toronto
>         >     647.724.5232 x 2073
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >  --
>         >  Ryan Daum
>         >  [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>         >  Senior Developer, Toronto
>         >  647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Ryan Daum
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     Senior Developer, Toronto
>     647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Re: mercurial provider patch

Emmanuel Venisse-2
In reply to this post by Ryan Daum-2


Ryan Daum a écrit :
> I have a local version here which now passes all Tck tests by doing the
> inventory of the repository after the tag.
>
> Emmanuel, I can provide you with a patch, but can you give me advice on
> how to get Subversion to produce a diff file (from svn diff) that will
> do the right thing with creating new files?  All the output I get from
> svn diff seems to do the same as the patch I provided to you yesterday.

It's probably because you do a svn copy instead of create a new file from scratch.
If you can't create a clean patch, attach it to jira with the new file attached too and I'll work around.

Emmanuel

>
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Just want to point out one more thing, and that is that the class
>     TagScmResult has two constructors, one of which accepts the list of
>     tagged files and the other which does not, leaving that list null.
>     If the intention is that all SCM providers provide this list, then
>     the other constructor should not exist.  Alternatively, if this is
>     not the intention, then the Tck test should not require that this
>     list be populated.
>
>     Ryan
>
>
>     On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* < [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>         No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of
>         tagged files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes
>         sense that the Tck test should require that a provider return a
>         list like this in this case.  I'm very skeptical of making the
>         provider's tag command perform an additional operation to list
>         all the files in the repository given that it already is doing
>         two operations: tag and push.
>
>         Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how
>         meaningful this test is.  I'm of the mind to say: just remove
>         the test from the test suite.  I have manually tested the
>         functionality and know that it works, and I think this feature
>         is pretty critical for a 1.0 release which includes the
>         Mercurial provider.
>
>         Your call,
>         Ryan
>
>
>         On 5/22/07, * Emmanuel Venisse* <[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>             It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult
>             that must contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you
>             can know with the hg tag command the list of tagged files by
>             parsing the output.
>
>             Emmanuel
>
>             Ryan Daum a écrit :
>             >  What is the expected behaviour for this test given that
>             many SCM
>             >  providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to
>             tag arbitrary
>             >  files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the
>             current revision
>             >  of the entire repository.  The parent tck test seems to
>             require the
>             >  ability to tag specific files only.
>             >
>             >  Ryan
>             >
>             >  On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* < [hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]>
>             >  <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>             wrote:
>             >
>             >     So if the latest commit is the release correction...
>             what you're
>             >     saying is unless you branched (did you?  where can I
>             check out the
>             >     branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make
>             it in before
>             >     the release.
>             >
>             >     Ryan
>             >
>             >
>             >     On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]>
>             >     <mailto:[hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         Ryan Daum a écrit :
>             >         >  Firstly, it does not build at all after update
>             given the
>             >         commits you
>             >         >  checked in earlier today, because it complains
>             about missing
>             >         >  org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so
>             I can't
>             >         actually run
>             >         >  through the tck profile you mention; can you
>             provide me
>             >         instructions on
>             >         >  how to get the latest checkout to build?
>             >
>             >         My latest commit is the release creation, so it
>             will be build
>             >         when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the
>             central repo.
>             >         You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
>             >        
>             http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
>             <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>
>             >         <
>             http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
>             >
>             >         >
>             >         >  What specifically fails on the tck?  Please
>             provide surefire
>             >         results, as
>             >         >  I cannot replicate your failure given the test I
>             added.
>             >
>             >         the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
>             >
>             >        
>             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             >         Test set:
>             >        
>             org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
>
>             >        
>             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             >
>             >         Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0,
>             Time elapsed:
>             >         2 sec <<< FAILURE!
>             >        
>             testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest)  Time
>             >         elapsed: 1.985 sec  <<< ERROR!
>             >         java.lang.NullPointerException
>             >                 at
>             >        
>             org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
>             >                 at
>             sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>             >         Method)
>             >                 at
>             >        
>             sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>             >                 at
>             >        
>             sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java
>             :25)
>             >                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke
>             (Method.java:585)
>             >                 at
>             junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
>             >                 at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare (
>             TestCase.java:127)
>             >                 at
>             >        
>             junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
>             >                 at
>             >        
>             junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
>             >                 at
>             junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
>             >                 at
>             junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
>             >                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest
>             (TestSuite.java :208)
>             >                 at
>             junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
>             >                 at
>             sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>             >         Method)
>             >                 at
>             >        
>             sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
>             >         :39)
>             >                 at
>             >        
>             sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>
>             >                 at
>             java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>             >                 at
>             org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
>             >         (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
>             >                 at
>             >        
>             org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
>             >                 at
>             >        
>             org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
>
>             >         (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
>             >                 at
>             org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
>             >                 at
>             sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>             >         Method)
>             >                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
>             >         (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>             >                 at
>             >         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
>             (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>             >                 at
>             java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>             >                 at
>             >        
>             org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
>
>             >         (SurefireBooter.java:290)
>             >                 at
>             >        
>             org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>             >                 at
>             >        
>             org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main
>             (SurefireBooter.java:818)
>             >
>             >
>             >         >
>             >         >  Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I
>             don't see from
>             >         the first
>             >         >  lines how it is invalid.
>             >
>             >         Index:
>             >        
>             maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>             >
>             >        
>             ===================================================================
>
>             >         ---
>             >        
>             maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>             >         (revision 0)
>             >         +++
>             >        
>             maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
>             >         (working copy)
>             >         @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>             >         -package
>             org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
>             >         +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
>             >
>             >           /*
>             >            * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation
>             (ASF) under one
>             >         @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
>             >            * under the License.
>             >            */
>             >
>             >         -import
>             org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
>             >         +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
>             >
>             >         ...
>             >
>             >         It isn't a patch for a file creation.
>             >
>             >         Emmanuel
>             >         >
>             >         >  Ryan
>             >         >
>             >         >  On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <
>             [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>             >         <mailto:[hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>             >         >  <mailto: [hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto: [hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>
>             >         wrote:
>             >         >
>             >         >     I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>             >         >
>             >         >     You can verify it by running 'mvn clean
>             package -Ptck' on
>             >         the hg
>             >         >     provider
>             >         >
>             >         >     For your next patch, generate a valid one,
>             the one in
>             >         SCM-319 wasn't
>             >         >     correct (look at first lines)
>             >         >
>             >         >     I'm sending the vote for the release of the
>             1.0, if I don't
>             >         have
>             >         >     your patch tomorrow, it will be include in
>             the next version.
>             >         >
>             >         >     Emmanuel
>             >         >
>             >         >     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>             >         >      > During further use/testing of the
>             mercurial provider
>             >         >      > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that
>             the "tag"
>             >         command was
>             >         >      > missing.  I've just fixed this.
>             >         >      >
>             >         >      > Please see the patch attached to
>             >         >     http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>             >         >      >
>             >         >      > Thank you,
>             >         >      >   Ryan Daum
>             >         >      >
>             >         >      > --
>             >         >      > Ryan Daum
>             >         >      > [hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto: [hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>             >         <mailto: [hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto: [hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]>>> <mailto:
>             >         >     [hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>             >         <mailto: [hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>
>             >         >      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>             >         >      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>             >         >
>             >         >
>             >         >
>             >         >
>             >         >  --
>             >         >  Ryan Daum
>             >         >  [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>             <mailto: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>             <mailto:
>             >         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>             <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>             >         >  Senior Developer, Toronto
>             >         >  647.724.5232 x 2073
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >     --
>             >     Ryan Daum
>             >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>             <mailto: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>             >     Senior Developer, Toronto
>             >     647.724.5232 x 2073
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >  --
>             >  Ryan Daum
>             >  [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>             <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>             >  Senior Developer, Toronto
>             >  647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
>         --
>         Ryan Daum
>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         Senior Developer, Toronto
>         647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Ryan Daum
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     Senior Developer, Toronto
>     647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mercurial provider patch

Emmanuel Venisse-2
In reply to this post by Ryan Daum-2
You can't get the files list by parsing the tag command output only?

Ryan Daum a écrit :

> No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of tagged
> files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes sense that the
> Tck test should require that a provider return a list like this in this
> case.  I'm very skeptical of making the provider's tag command perform
> an additional operation to list all the files in the repository given
> that it already is doing two operations: tag and push.
>
> Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how meaningful this
> test is.  I'm of the mind to say: just remove the test from the test
> suite.  I have manually tested the functionality and know that it works,
> and I think this feature is pretty critical for a 1.0 release which
> includes the Mercurial provider.
>
> Your call,
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that
>     must contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know with
>     the hg tag command the list of tagged files by parsing the output.
>
>     Emmanuel
>
>     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>      > What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
>      > providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag
>     arbitrary
>      > files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current
>     revision
>      > of the entire repository.  The parent tck test seems to require the
>      > ability to tag specific files only.
>      >
>      > Ryan
>      >
>      > On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* < [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're
>      >     saying is unless you branched (did you?  where can I check
>     out the
>      >     branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in
>     before
>      >     the release.
>      >
>      >     Ryan
>      >
>      >
>      >     On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      >     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>     wrote:
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >         Ryan Daum a écrit :
>      >         >  Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the
>      >         commits you
>      >         >  checked in earlier today, because it complains about
>     missing
>      >         >  org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't
>      >         actually run
>      >         >  through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
>      >         instructions on
>      >         >  how to get the latest checkout to build?
>      >
>      >         My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be
>     build
>      >         when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the
>     central repo.
>      >         You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
>      >         http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
>      >         <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
>      >
>      >         >
>      >         >  What specifically fails on the tck?  Please provide
>     surefire
>      >         results, as
>      >         >  I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
>      >
>      >         the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
>      >
>      >        
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >         Test set:
>      >        
>     org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
>      >        
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >
>      >         Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time
>     elapsed:
>      >         2 sec <<< FAILURE!
>      >        
>     testTagCommandTest(org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest)  Time
>      >         elapsed: 1.985 sec  <<< ERROR!
>      >         java.lang.NullPointerException
>      >                 at
>      >        
>     org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
>      >                 at
>     sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>      >         Method)
>      >                 at
>      >        
>     sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>      >                 at
>      >        
>     sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java
>     :25)
>      >                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
>      >                 at
>     junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
>      >                 at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(
>     TestCase.java:127)
>      >                 at
>      >         junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
>      >                 at
>      >         junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
>      >                 at
>     junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
>      >                 at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
>      >                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest
>     (TestSuite.java :208)
>      >                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
>      >                 at
>     sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>      >         Method)
>      >                 at
>      >        
>     sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
>      >         :39)
>      >                 at
>      >        
>     sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>
>      >                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>      >                 at
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
>      >         (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
>      >                 at
>      >        
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet(AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
>      >                 at
>      >        
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
>      >         (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:125)
>      >                 at
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
>      >                 at
>     sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>      >         Method)
>      >                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
>      >         (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>      >                 at
>      >         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
>     (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>      >                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>      >                 at
>      >        
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
>      >         (SurefireBooter.java:290)
>      >                 at
>      >        
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>      >                 at
>      >         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main
>     (SurefireBooter.java:818)
>      >
>      >
>      >         >
>      >         >  Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't
>     see from
>      >         the first
>      >         >  lines how it is invalid.
>      >
>      >         Index:
>      >        
>     maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>      >
>      >        
>     ===================================================================
>      >         ---
>      >        
>     maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>      >         (revision 0)
>      >         +++
>      >        
>     maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
>      >         (working copy)
>      >         @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>      >         -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
>      >         +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag;
>      >
>      >           /*
>      >            * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
>     under one
>      >         @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
>      >            * under the License.
>      >            */
>      >
>      >         -import
>     org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
>      >         +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils;
>      >
>      >         ...
>      >
>      >         It isn't a patch for a file creation.
>      >
>      >         Emmanuel
>      >         >
>      >         >  Ryan
>      >         >
>      >         >  On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      >         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      >         >  <mailto:[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>
>      >         wrote:
>      >         >
>      >         >     I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>      >         >
>      >         >     You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package
>     -Ptck' on
>      >         the hg
>      >         >     provider
>      >         >
>      >         >     For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in
>      >         SCM-319 wasn't
>      >         >     correct (look at first lines)
>      >         >
>      >         >     I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if
>     I don't
>      >         have
>      >         >     your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next
>     version.
>      >         >
>      >         >     Emmanuel
>      >         >
>      >         >     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>      >         >      > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
>      >         >      > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag"
>      >         command was
>      >         >      > missing.  I've just fixed this.
>      >         >      >
>      >         >      > Please see the patch attached to
>      >         >     http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>      >         >      >
>      >         >      > Thank you,
>      >         >      >   Ryan Daum
>      >         >      >
>      >         >      > --
>      >         >      > Ryan Daum
>      >         >      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      >         <mailto: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> <mailto:
>      >         >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      >         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>
>      >         >      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>      >         >      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>      >         >
>      >         >
>      >         >
>      >         >
>      >         >  --
>      >         >  Ryan Daum
>      >         >  [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> <mailto:
>      >         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>      >         >  Senior Developer, Toronto
>      >         >  647.724.5232 x 2073
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >     --
>      >     Ryan Daum
>      >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      >     Senior Developer, Toronto
>      >     647.724.5232 x 2073
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > --
>      > Ryan Daum
>      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mercurial provider patch

Ryan Daum-2
No -- "hg tag" does not return a list of files tagged because a "tag" in Mercurial (and in some other systems) does not mean "tag these files" it means "tag this revision" .. thus it does not return a list of files tagged since by definition all files in the repository for this revision are now tagged.

In any case, I just "fake it" by returning a list of all the files.

You're right about the "svn copy" -- I started from existing commands and modified, and this is what IntelliJ did; let me see if I can work around this by just starting from a fresh checkout and copying the correct files over.  Expect a patch on the Jira issue in a few minutes.

Thanks,

Ryan

On 5/23/07, Emmanuel Venisse <[hidden email]> wrote:
You can't get the files list by parsing the tag command output only?

Ryan Daum a écrit :

> No, it's not possible to do this -- and in any case the list of tagged
> files would be the entire repository; not sure it makes sense that the
> Tck test should require that a provider return a list like this in this
> case.  I'm very skeptical of making the provider's tag command perform
> an additional operation to list all the files in the repository given
> that it already is doing two operations: tag and push.
>
> Given the set of tests in the tck test, I'm not sure how meaningful this
> test is.  I'm of the mind to say: just remove the test from the test
> suite.  I have manually tested the functionality and know that it works,
> and I think this feature is pretty critical for a 1.0 release which
> includes the Mercurial provider.
>
> Your call,
> Ryan
>
> On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     It doesn't tag arbitrary files but it test the TagScmResult that
>     must contains the list of tagged files. I'm sure you can know with
>     the hg tag command the list of tagged files by parsing the output.
>
>     Emmanuel
>
>     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>      > What is the expected behaviour for this test given that many SCM
>      > providers (hg being one) do not provide such a facility to tag
>     arbitrary
>      > files? Many SCMs only support laying a tag against the current
>     revision
>      > of the entire repository.  The parent tck test seems to require the
>      > ability to tag specific files only.
>      >
>      > Ryan
>      >
>      > On 5/22/07, *Ryan Daum* < [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     So if the latest commit is the release correction... what you're
>      >     saying is unless you branched (did you?  where can I check
>     out the
>      >     branch), there's no way at all that my changes can make it in
>     before
>      >     the release.
>      >
>      >     Ryan
>      >
>      >
>      >     On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      >     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: [hidden email]>>>
>     wrote:
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >         Ryan Daum a écrit :
>      >         >  Firstly, it does not build at all after update given the
>      >         commits you
>      >         >  checked in earlier today, because it complains about
>     missing
>      >         >  org.apache.maven.scm:maven-scm-api:jar:1.0 , so I can't
>      >         actually run
>      >         >  through the tck profile you mention; can you provide me
>      >         instructions on
>      >         >  how to get the latest checkout to build?
>      >
>      >         My latest commit is the release creation, so it will be
>     build
>      >         when the 1.0 will be validated and deployed to the
>     central repo.
>      >         You can use the staging repo to get 1.0 artifacts (
>      >         http://people.apache.org/~evenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/
>      >         <http://people.apache.org/%7Eevenisse/stage/maven-scm-repo/>)
>      >
>      >         >
>      >         >  What specifically fails on the tck?  Please provide

>     surefire
>      >         results, as
>      >         >  I cannot replicate your failure given the test I added.
>      >
>      >         the TagScmResult doesn't contains tagged files list:
>      >
>      >
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >         Test set:
>      >
>     org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest
>      >
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >
>      >         Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time
>     elapsed:
>      >         2 sec <<< FAILURE!
>      >
>     testTagCommandTest( org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag.HgTagCommandTckTest)  Time
>      >         elapsed: 1.985 sec  <<< ERROR!
>      >         java.lang.NullPointerException
>      >                 at
>      >
>     org.apache.maven.scm.tck.command.tag.TagCommandTckTest.testTagCommandTest(TagCommandTckTest.java:53)
>      >                 at
>     sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0 (Native
>      >         Method)
>      >                 at
>      >
>     sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>      >                 at
>      >
>     sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java
>     :25)
>      >                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke (Method.java:585)
>      >                 at
>     junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
>      >                 at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(
>     TestCase.java:127)
>      >                 at
>      >         junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
>      >                 at
>      >         junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
>      >                 at
>     junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)

>      >                 at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
>      >                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest
>     ( TestSuite.java :208)
>      >                 at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
>      >                 at
>     sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>      >         Method)
>      >                 at
>      >
>     sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java
>      >         :39)
>      >                 at
>      >
>     sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>
>      >                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>      >                 at
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.junit.JUnitTestSet.execute
>      >         (JUnitTestSet.java:213)
>      >                 at
>      >
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.executeTestSet (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java:138)
>      >                 at
>      >
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.suite.AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.execute
>      >         (AbstractDirectoryTestSuite.java :125)
>      >                 at
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.Surefire.run(Surefire.java:132)
>      >                 at
>     sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
>      >         Method)
>      >                 at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
>      >         (NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>      >                 at
>      >         sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke
>     (DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>      >                 at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
>      >                 at
>      >
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess
>      >         (SurefireBooter.java:290)
>      >                 at
>      >
>     org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:818)
>      >                 at
>      >         org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main
>     (SurefireBooter.java:818)
>      >
>      >
>      >         >
>      >         >  Secondly, the patch is output from svn diff, I don't
>     see from
>      >         the first
>      >         >  lines how it is invalid.
>      >
>      >         Index:
>      >
>     maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>      >
>      >
>     ===================================================================
>      >         ---
>      >
>     maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>      >         (revision 0)
>      >         +++
>      >
>     maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-provider-hg/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/scm/provider/hg/command/tag/HgTagCommandTckTest.java
>
>      >         (working copy)
>      >         @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>      >         -package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.command.tag ;
>      >         +package org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.command.tag ;
>      >
>      >           /*
>      >            * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
>     under one
>      >         @@ -19,31 +19,27 @@
>      >            * under the License.
>      >            */
>      >
>      >         -import
>     org.apache.maven.scm.provider.cvslib.CvsScmTestUtils ;
>      >         +import org.apache.maven.scm.provider.hg.HgRepoUtils ;
>      >
>      >         ...
>      >
>      >         It isn't a patch for a file creation.
>      >
>      >         Emmanuel
>      >         >
>      >         >  Ryan

>      >         >
>      >         >  On 5/22/07, *Emmanuel Venisse* < [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>      >         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      >         >  <mailto: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>
>      >         wrote:
>      >         >
>      >         >     I can't apply because your patch fail on the tck.
>      >         >
>      >         >     You can verify it by running 'mvn clean package
>     -Ptck' on
>      >         the hg
>      >         >     provider
>      >         >
>      >         >     For your next patch, generate a valid one, the one in
>      >         SCM-319 wasn't
>      >         >     correct (look at first lines)
>      >         >
>      >         >     I'm sending the vote for the release of the 1.0, if
>     I don't
>      >         have
>      >         >     your patch tomorrow, it will be include in the next
>     version.
>      >         >
>      >         >     Emmanuel
>      >         >
>      >         >     Ryan Daum a écrit :
>      >         >      > During further use/testing of the mercurial provider
>      >         >      > (maven-scm-provider-hg) I discovered that the "tag"
>      >         command was
>      >         >      > missing.  I've just fixed this.
>      >         >      >

>      >         >      > Please see the patch attached to
>      >         >     http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-319
>      >         >      >
>      >         >      > Thank you,
>      >         >      >   Ryan Daum
>      >         >      >
>      >         >      > --
>      >         >      > Ryan Daum
>      >         >      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      >         <mailto: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> <mailto:
>      >         >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>

>      >         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>
>      >         >      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>      >         >      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>      >         >
>      >         >
>      >         >
>      >         >
>      >         >  --
>      >         >  Ryan Daum
>      >         >  [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> <mailto:
>      >         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>      >         >  Senior Developer, Toronto
>      >         >  647.724.5232 x 2073
>      >

>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >     --
>      >     Ryan Daum
>      >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      >     Senior Developer, Toronto
>      >     647.724.5232 x 2073
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > --
>      > Ryan Daum
>      > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>      > Senior Developer, Toronto
>      > 647.724.5232 x 2073
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Daum
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Senior Developer, Toronto
> 647.724.5232 x 2073




--
Ryan Daum
[hidden email]
Senior Developer, Toronto
647.724.5232 x 2073