Re: Path canonicalization assertion failure triggered by add_dir_recursively()

Daniel Rall <dlr@finemaltcoding.com> writes:

> Turns out the call to svn_path_basename() from svn_wc_is_adm_dir() was
> a local hack I had in my working copy which was requested by the
> Subclipse folks (I didn't see any comments on the patch when I last
> posted it to list, but could've missed them). Any objections to me
> committing both patches? I do have some concern that the previously
> super-thin svn_wc_is_adm_dir() routines becomes heavier because of
> this change. Thoughts?

Subeclipse can call svn_path_basename before calling
svn_wc_is_adm_dir, is there some reason that it's better for
Subversion to do it? On the whole I tend to favour the existing
interface.

Obviously you need to update the header file as well.

> Index: subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_files.c
> ===================================================================
> --- subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_files.c (revision 17065)
> +++ subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_files.c (working copy)
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
> svn_boolean_t
> svn_wc_is_adm_dir (const char *name, apr_pool_t *pool)

Use 'path' rather than 'name'.

> {
> - (void)pool; /* Silence compiler warnings about unused parameter. */
> + name = svn_path_basename (name, pool);
> return (0 == strcmp (name, adm_dir_name)
> || 0 == strcmp (name, default_adm_dir_name));
> }

-- 
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org