On 12/21/10 4:03 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 15:55:30 -0800:
>> 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
>>
>
> I wasn't at the computer then.
>
> Patch looks good. My only comment is that the docstring might want to
> warn against using svn_error_clear() on the returned value.
Thanks, done in r1051713.
Blair
Received on 2010-12-22 01:24:01 CET