On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 09:29:18AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > It looks like it might be complaining about the content of the svn:date
> > revprop on that revision, though I can't see anything wrong with it via
> > DAV (I assume ViewCVS uses ra_local, though).
>
> ViewCVS uses direct repository access via the Subversion Python
> bindings (but *can* use any of the three RA layers, too, at the cost
> of years of your life waiting for responses).
>
> But yeesh -- I can't see anything wrong with that date, either.
> Weirdness. Guess I've some debugging to do today... Thanks for
> pointing this out, Malcolm!
>
svn_string_t (which svn_fs_txn_prop() [et al] uses) are counted strings.
I wondered if this is due to the difference between a property containing
"2005-10-25T14:52:07.936032Z" (r17005) and one containing something like
"2005-10-25T15:33:29.047905Z\0" (r17006). Of course, I've no way to
test that theory, since for all I know, ra_dav strips out everything
following a NUL byte.
Hmm. We should probably be performing elementary validation on the
contents of svn:xx revprops and node properties at property-set time. It
would be nice if we could guarantee that svn:data always contained a
valid date string, for example.(It would be nice if we could guarantee
that it always _existed_, but we don't seem to do that).
Regards,
Malcolm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 27 17:12:20 2005