On 12/21/10 3:22 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
> 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.
>
> Daniel,
>
> 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.
I checked if you were on IRC, but I've got a deadline on a project I'm working
on and needed this, so I went ahead and made the change.
r1051702
Blair
Received on 2010-12-22 00:56:13 CET