[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       subversion-dev
Subject:    Re: svn commit: r1839703 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
From:       Daniel Shahaf <d.s () daniel ! shahaf ! name>
Date:       2018-08-30 21:44:16
Message-ID: 1535665456.16528.1491863872.4BD21A6B () webmail ! messagingengine ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

rhuijben@apache.org wrote on Thu, 30 Aug 2018 21:18 +0000:
> Author: rhuijben
> Date: Thu Aug 30 21:18:31 2018
> New Revision: 1839703
> 
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1839703&view=rev
> Log:
> Mark 2 tests as skipped when we test using an python that contains
> an sqlite that is unable to read our sqlite db files.
> 
> * subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
>   (imports): Add wc, to use existing checker, as used in other places.
>   (recover_prunes_rep_cache_when_enabled,
>    recover_prunes_rep_cache_when_disabled): Add skip markers.

> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmin_tests.py
> @@ -3897,6 +3898,7 @@ def check_recover_prunes_rep_cache(sbox,
>  
>  @Issue(4077)
>  @SkipUnless(svntest.main.is_fs_type_fsfs)
> +@SkipUnless(svntest.wc.python_sqlite_can_read_wc)
>  def recover_prunes_rep_cache_when_enabled(sbox):
>    "recover prunes rep cache when enabled"
>    sbox.build()
> @@ -3905,6 +3907,7 @@ def recover_prunes_rep_cache_when_enable
>  
>  @Issue(4077)
>  @SkipUnless(svntest.main.is_fs_type_fsfs)
> +@SkipUnless(svntest.wc.python_sqlite_can_read_wc)
>  def recover_prunes_rep_cache_when_disabled(sbox):
>    "recover prunes rep cache when disabled"
>    sbox.build()

I think you'll want to add these to the r1838813 backport nomination on
1.9 and 1.10...

But I'm not sure I like these skips.  These tests, I believe, exist to
ensure that we don't introduce a "time bomb" configuration --- a fs
state that may lead to silent data loss down the road.  I don't think
silently skipping these tests is a good idea.  We _should_ be
verifying that the bug that we fixed (for the second time) in r1838813
remains fixed.

I am unable to suggest an alternative that meets both my goals and
your goals because the log message does not explain the reason for
the change.  (Is this about the SQLite minimum version again?  If so,
wouldn't relaxing the minimum to whatever 1.9 required --- that being
the first minor release that shipped FSFS f7 --- suffice?)

Cheers,

Daniel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]