Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:55:37 -0800:
> On 12/21/10 10:40 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
>>> 4) In svn_repos_fs_commit_txn(), which order should errors be composed?
>>> svn_fs_commit_txn()'s error as the parent followed by the
>>> SVN_ERR_REPOS_POST_COMMIT_HOOK_FAILED error as a child? This seems to be
>>> the standard ordering of chained errors. On the other hand, it makes it
>>> harder to find a post-commit script error.
>> Actually, it will make it impossible to detect post-commit errors over
>> ra_dav, since that RA layer marshals only the outermost error code in an
>> error chain.
> ra_dav already checks for SVN_ERR_REPOS_POST_COMMIT_HOOK_FAILED, it could
> use svn_error_has_cause() to find it. If ra_dav cannot find a
> SVN_ERR_REPOS_POST_COMMIT_HOOK_FAILED but there is an error and the
> commit succeeded, then I think the parent error should be returned to
> warn people there may be an issue with the server.
(I'm reading s/ra_dav/mod_dav_svn/)
+1, modulo one change: the "there may be issue with the server" is not
just when SVN_ERR_REPOS_POST_COMMIT_HOOK_FAILED isn't found, but also
when that is found but svn_fs_commit_txn() failed as well.
I'm not sure I have a good suggestion, but principly we should be sure
we allow the user/admin to understand exactly what happened ---
post-commit hook failed, post-commit FS juggling failed, or both.
Received on 2010-12-21 20:34:05 CET