On 12/21/2010 02:08 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:55:37 -0800: >> On 12/21/10 10:40 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>> Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800: >>>> 4) In svn_repos_fs_commit_txn(), which order should errors be composed? >>>> svn_fs_commit_txn()'s error as the parent followed by the >>>> SVN_ERR_REPOS_POST_COMMIT_HOOK_FAILED error as a child? This seems to be >>>> the standard ordering of chained errors. On the other hand, it makes it >>>> harder to find a post-commit script error. >>> >>> Actually, it will make it impossible to detect post-commit errors over >>> ra_dav, since that RA layer marshals only the outermost error code in an >>> error chain. >> >> ra_dav already checks for SVN_ERR_REPOS_POST_COMMIT_HOOK_FAILED, it could >> use svn_error_has_cause() to find it. > > How can it do that if only the topmost error code is marshalled? > > I first discovered that ra_dav only marshals the outermost error code > (and its error message, but nothing else of the chain) when I worked on > the atomic-revprops branch. In dev@ archives there should be some > discussions of how error chain marshalling might be implemented, but > eventually I solved the problem differently for that branch (by using > another error-signalling mechanism). > > ra_svn marshals full error chains.
Can we fix this? Can we introduce a new error code SVN_ERR_RA_DAV_ERROR_CHAIN which means, "the descriptive message of this error contains a skel which, when parsed, carries a whole chain of real errors? Then we have the client indicate at capabilities-exchange time that it can handle that kind of return. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
