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

Re: svn commit: r1146547 - in /subversion/branches/fs-progress/subversion: include/ libsvn_fs/ libsvn_fs_base/ libsvn_fs_fs/ libsvn_repos/ svnadmin/ tests/cmdline/

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:50:21 -0400

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 22:39, <danielsh_at_apache.org> wrote:
>...
> +++ subversion/branches/fs-progress/subversion/include/svn_fs.h Thu Jul 14 02:39:52 2011
> @@ -246,6 +246,24 @@ svn_fs_upgrade(const char *path,
>                apr_pool_t *pool);
>
>  /**
> + * Callback function type for progress notification.
> + *
> + * @a progress is the number of steps already completed, @a total is
> + * the total number of steps in this stage, @a stage is the number of
> + * stages (for extensibility), @a baton is the callback baton.
> + *
> + * @note The number of stages may vary depending on the backend, library
> + * version, and so on.  @a total may be a best-effort estimate.
> + *
> + * @since New in 1.8.
> + */
> +typedef void (*svn_fs_progress_notify_func_t)(apr_off_t progress,
> +                                              apr_off_t total,
> +                                              int stage,
> +                                              void *baton,
> +                                              apr_pool_t *scratch_pool);

How are PROGRESS and TOTAL logically associated with an apr_off_t?
That type is for file offsets. Progress information wouldn't seem to
have any correlation. Maybe just a long? Or an apr_int64_t ?

>...
> +++ subversion/branches/fs-progress/subversion/include/svn_repos.h Thu Jul 14 02:39:52 2011
> @@ -242,7 +242,19 @@ typedef enum svn_repos_notify_action_t
>   svn_repos_notify_recover_start,
>
>   /** Upgrade has started. */
> -  svn_repos_notify_upgrade_start
> +  svn_repos_notify_upgrade_start,
> +
> +  /** Verifying global data has commenced
> +   * @since New in 1.8. */
> +  svn_repos_notify_verify_aux_start,

Why it is described as "global data", yet the symbol uses "aux"?

>...
> @@ -315,6 +327,12 @@ typedef struct svn_repos_notify_t
>   /** For #svn_repos_notify_load_node_start, the path of the node. */
>   const char *path;
>
> +  /** For #svn_repos_notify_verify_aux_progress;
> +      see svn_fs_progress_notify_func_t. */
> +  apr_off_t progress_progress;
> +  apr_off_t progress_total;
> +  int progress_stage;

See above re: apr_off_t. And should "stage" be an integer, or is that
an enumerated constant?

>...
> +++ subversion/branches/fs-progress/subversion/libsvn_repos/dump.c Thu Jul 14 02:39:52 2011
>...
> @@ -1284,8 +1306,37 @@ svn_repos_verify_fs2(svn_repos_t *repos,
>
>   /* Verify global/auxiliary data before verifying revisions. */
>   if (start_rev == 0)
> -    SVN_ERR(svn_fs_verify(svn_fs_path(fs, pool), cancel_func, cancel_baton,
> -                          pool));
> +    {
> +      struct progress_to_notify_baton ptnb = {
> +        notify_func, notify_baton, NULL
> +      };
> +
> +      /* Create a notify object that we can reuse within the callback. */
> +      if (notify_func)
> +        ptnb.notify = svn_repos_notify_create(svn_repos_notify_verify_aux_progress,
> +                                              iterpool);
> +
> +      /* We're starting. */
> +      if (notify_func)
> +        notify_func(notify_baton,
> +                    svn_repos_notify_create(svn_repos_notify_verify_aux_start,
> +                                            iterpool),
> +                    iterpool);
> +
> +      /* Do the work. */
> +      SVN_ERR(svn_fs_verify(svn_fs_path(fs, iterpool),
> +                            (notify_func ? progress_to_notify : NULL), &ptnb,
> +                            cancel_func, cancel_baton,
> +                            iterpool));
> +
> +      /* We're finished. */
> +      if (notify_func)
> +        notify_func(notify_baton,
> +                    svn_repos_notify_create(svn_repos_notify_verify_aux_end,
> +                                            iterpool),
> +                    iterpool);
> +
> +    }

It seems the entire block above can be written more clearly with an
outer-block test of (notify_func), and then a direct call to
svn_fs_verify() without notify information, or a big block to set up
and do all the notification stuff. That should be clearer than four
tests of (notify_func).

Not to mention the conditional setting of .notify, yet there is an
unconditional usage in progress_to_notify() ... kinda throws you for a
bit. Until you realize that progress_to_notify() is *also*
conditionally used.

>...

Cheers,
-g
Received on 2011-07-14 06:51:19 CEST

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