Fix rbt patch for SVN backend

Review Request #7095 — Created March 20, 2015 and submitted

Information

RBTools
release-0.7.x
c5087c6...

Reviewers

Previously, rbt patch would not work with SVN repositories. This was
because the the value for patch's -p flag was being calculated
incorrectly for SVN repositories. This has been corrected and now we use
svn patch to apply the patch instead of the patch executable. This
allows patches containing SVN keywords to be applied.

Ran unit tests.

Successfully used rbt patch to apply a patch to an SVN repository.
Successfully used rbt patch to apply a patch to an SVN repository that
used SVN keywords (e.g. $Rev$).

Description From Last Updated

These parens aren't useful.

daviddavid

The logic in _get_p_number() does not seem correct in all cases, particularly when the working copy where the patch is …

gmyersgmyers

If I provide a --px NUM option on the command line, then I get an exception here: ... File "/xxxx/rbtools/rbtools/clients/svn.py", …

gmyersgmyers
reviewbot
  1. Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/clients/__init__.py
        rbtools/clients/svn.py
    
    
    
    Tool: Pyflakes
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/clients/__init__.py
        rbtools/clients/svn.py
    
    
  2. 
      
david
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
brennie
reviewbot
  1. Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/clients/svn.py
    
    
    
    Tool: Pyflakes
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/clients/svn.py
    
    
  2. 
      
david
  1. 
      
  2. rbtools/clients/__init__.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
    Show all issues

    These parens aren't useful.

    1. They are removed in diff revision 2.

  3. 
      
brennie
reviewbot
  1. Tool: Pyflakes
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/clients/svn.py
    
    
    
    Tool: PEP8 Style Checker
    Processed Files:
        rbtools/clients/svn.py
    
    
  2. 
      
brennie
Review request changed

Status: Closed (submitted)

Change Summary:

Pushed to release-0.7.x (d0f33dc)
gmyers
  1. I've been leveraging svn patch for a while as an indirect mechanism for applying patches from RB, so I like this change. But, I did want to note that svn patch didn't come into existence until Subversion 1.7 (https://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/1.7.html#patch) so I suppose it's possible this could lead to a regression for users of older SVN releases, although it sounds like rbt patch for SVN was broken to begin with.

    1. Hey Griffin, thanks for the heads up. I'm pretty sure that rbt patch hasn't ever worked with SVN. I've got another patch up at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/7097 that provides an error message when rbt patch is used with svn prior to 1.7.0 instead of yielding unhelpful errors.

  2. 
      
gmyers
  1. 
      
    1. Thanks for bringing up these issues. I will address them in another patch.

    2. These issues are addressed in https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/7110/.

  2. rbtools/clients/svn.py (Diff revision 3)
     
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    The logic in _get_p_number() does not seem correct in all cases, particularly when the working copy where the patch is being applied does not correspond to the repository root. Suppose I have a repo that looks something like:

    /
    |-- branches
    |-- tags
    |-- trunk
    |-- a.txt

    I might have two different checkouts here, one from the repository root and one from trunk:

    wcRoot: svn checkout file://URL/repo /tmp/wcRoot
    wcTrunk: svn checkout file://URL/repo/trunk /tmp/wcTrunk

    Suppose then I make a trivial modification to a.txt in wcRoot. I can execute rbt post from either /tmp/wcRoot (post-method-A) or /tmp/wcRoot/trunk (post-method-B). These appear to result in different base_path metadata, although it is not clear to me if this is really desired. The underlying content of the diffs is identical.

    Anyway with these two working copies and two post methods, I now have several possible combinations for applying a patch with rbt patch:

    Case 1
    Post from: post-method-A
    Patch to: wcRoot (execute rbt patch in /tmp/wcRoot)
    base_dir: /
    base_path: /
    p_num: 1
    Result: Success

    Case 2
    Post from: post-method-B
    Patch to: wcRoot (execute rbt patch in /tmp/wcRoot)
    base_dir: /trunk
    base_path: /
    p_num: 1
    Result: Success

    Case 3
    Post from: post-method-A
    Patch to: wcRoot (execute rbt patch in /tmp/wcRoot/trunk)
    base_dir: /
    base_path: /trunk
    p_num: None
    Result: Failure to patch (Skipped missing target: '/trunk/a.txt')

    Case 4
    Post from: post-method-B
    Patch to: wcRoot (execute rbt patch in /tmp/wcRoot/trunk)
    base_dir: /trunk
    base_path: /trunk
    p_num: 1
    Result: Failure to patch (Skipped missing target: '/trunk/a.txt')

    Case 5
    Post from: post-method-A
    Patch to: wcTrunk (execute rbt patch in /tmp/wcTrunk)
    base_dir: /
    base_path: /trunk
    p_num: None
    Result: Failure to patch (Skipped missing target: '/trunk/a.txt')

    Case 6
    Post from: post-method-B
    Patch to: wcTrunk (execute rbt patch in /tmp/wcTrunk)
    base_dir: /trunk
    base_path: /trunk
    p_num: 1
    Result: Failure to patch (Skipped missing target: '/trunk/a.txt')

    Cases 3 and 5 and cases 4 and 6 are effectively identical. Cases 3-6 would all work as expected if p_num was 2 rather than None or 1.

    1. So we've decided that a patch must be applied in the directory it was generated in or a higher level directory. Otherwise this can cause some issues.

      Consider the case where a patch is created in the root checkout and modifies things in both trunk and branches. If we apply it in /, there is no issue. However, if we apply it in trunk/, svn will create the things that should have been in branches/ in trunk/.

  3. rbtools/clients/svn.py (Diff revision 3)
     
     
    Show all issues

    If I provide a --px NUM option on the command line, then I get an exception here:

    ...
      File "/xxxx/rbtools/rbtools/clients/svn.py", line 682, in apply_patch
        cmd.append('--strip=%d' % p_num)
    TypeError: %d format: a number is required, not str
    
  4. 
      
Loading...