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

Re: svn_fs_commit_txn and svn_repos_fs_commit_txn inconsistency

From: Blair Zajac <blair_at_orcaware.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:22:45 -0800

On 12/21/10 10:55 AM, Blair Zajac wrote:
> On 12/21/10 10:40 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
>>> On 12/20/10 11:32 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>>> On 12/20/2010 02:14 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
>>>>> Shouldn't svn_repos_fs_commit_txn() always run the post-commit hook if
>>>>> new_rev is a valid rev?
>>>> That does seem reasonable, yes.
>>> Looking through our code, no existing use of svn_fs_commit_txn() and
>>> svn_repos_fs_commit_txn() use SVN_IS_VALID_REVNUM(new_rev), the code
>>> checks for a non-NULL svn_error_t * and checks if the parent error is a
>>> SVN_ERR_REPOS_POST_COMMIT_HOOK_FAILED. It also doesn't scan the chain
>>> for that error.
>> svn_error_has_cause() could be used for that.


I need a version of svn_error_has_cause() that returns the actual error. How
about replacing svn_error_has_cause() with svn_error_find_cause() that returns a
NULL or the error? It could still be used for the Boolean test case in this way.

Received on 2010-12-22 00:23:29 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.