> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:stsp_at_apache.org]
> Sent: maandag 24 oktober 2016 11:08
> To: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1764447 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion:
> libsvn_client/conflicts.c tests/libsvn_client/conflicts-test.c
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 03:31:22PM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:34:19PM -0000, stsp_at_apache.org wrote:
> > > Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/conflicts.c
> > > URL:
> > >
> > > --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/conflicts.c (original)
> > > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/conflicts.c Wed Oct 12
> 12:34:18 2016
> > > @@ -5666,6 +5726,18 @@ diff_file_added(const char *relpath,
> > > FALSE, FALSE, scratch_pool));
> > > SVN_ERR(svn_io_check_path(local_abspath, &on_disk_kind,
> > >
> > > + if (db_kind == svn_node_file && db_kind == svn_node_file)
> > Coverity noticed both sides of the && are the same. Should one side be
> > "on_disk_kind == svn_node_file" instead?
> Yes indeed, it should. Thanks! I'll fix this when I find time
> if it's not already been fixed by then.
Be careful when committing this as an 'obvious fix'. I've seen a very
similar problem in the conflict code in the past that has very explicit
tests in our testsuite that verify the current behavior. It is very well
possible that this is just the same code moved to a different location.
If this is that specific case the problem should be fixed, but it won't be
an obvious fix... more a case of careful review of all the cases that
trigger this code and then updating expected results.
Received on 2016-10-24 11:19:16 CEST