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

Re: Make option parsing error messages translatable

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase_at_bredband.net>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 00:45:44 +0200

6 maj 2013 kl. 23.39 skrev Daniel Shahaf:

> The patch achieves its end in an unmaintainable way. It's liable to
> break when APR's implementation details change, and since it
> ultimately
> attempts to parse something which wasn't intended to be parsed, it
> might
> do the _wrong_ thing (as opposed to just not doing anything) someday.

No, APR is constrained by its API; it cannot change arbitrarily.

> I can't see today what other circumstances APR would call errfn->("%s:
> %s: %c\n", _, "invalid option", _) in, but they don't guarantee us
> that
> there won't be other circumstances so I tend not to assume that they
> won't. That's how I treat Subversion APIs that I write and call, and
> that's how I treat APR too: I rely on promises, not on implementation
> details.

No, the patch will translate "%s: invalid option: %s\n" and a few
other messages as specified by the .po files. There is no way it can
"do the wrong thing".

The worst that can happen is that someone changes the spelling or
formatting of one of the messages in APR. The consequence is then that
this message will be displayed untranslated, and that the translators
may not immediately get to know about it since the changed strings are
not seen by the gettext string extractor. Clearly, this is no worse
than the present situation.

Yes, this patch relies on promises made by the APR - the errfn
signature and semantics.

Should APR eventually contain a more sophisticated error-reporting
interface in the future, the proposed code could of course be retired
in favour of a use of that interface. Until then, the patch would
serve its purpose.

>> Since the patch:
>> 1) solves an annoying problem,
> Which no one complained about.

Two translators have pointed out the defect. Either should be

> Keep in mind that error message in the libraries are translated, and
> 'svn help' is translated. Is it really that important to translate
> 'invalid option'? If it is, wouldn't someone have complained about it
> on users@?

Surely the worthiness of bugs to be fixed isn't measured in the number
of complaints to the users@ mailing list?
Of course it's important to translate that message -- if localisation
is important at all, that is.

> Feel free to point me at another place in svn's code that ignores API
> non-promises or parses something that wasn't intended to be parsed.

The suggested patch does not misuse the API. Should APR change,
crashes or corruption cannot occur; the API guarantees that.
Received on 2013-05-07 00:46:19 CEST

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.