[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: svn commit: r39964 - trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc

From: Bert Huijben <rhuijben_at_sharpsvn.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:27:26 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 13 oktober 2009 18:48
> To: dev_at_subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r39964 - trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 15:56, Bert Huijben <rhuijben_at_sharpsvn.net>
> wrote:
> >...
> > +++ trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/update_editor.c Mon Oct 12 12:56:27
> 2009 (r39964)
> >...
> > + if (kind == svn_wc__db_kind_unknown)
> > + break;
> >
> > - ancestor_abspath = APR_ARRAY_IDX(ancestors, i, const char *);
> > + SVN_ERR(svn_wc__db_node_hidden(&hidden, db, ancestor_abspath,
> iterpool));
> > +
> > + if (hidden)
> > + break;
>
> An ancestor better not be missing or hidden. These checks are better
> as an assertion.

That would raise an assertion if somebody added a new external (/separate working copy) in place of a base not_present, excluded or absent node. (The checkout phase would reach this part of the code)

I don't think we want to raise exceptions on this kind of (user?) errors. A normal error could be valid, but this code path used to work in this case. (Because the entry api would just return NULL for hidden nodes)

        Bert

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2407447
Received on 2009-10-14 10:27:45 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.