On Dec 16, 2007, at 6:11 PM, nextgens at freenetproject.org wrote:
> Author: nextgens
> Date: 2007-12-17 00:11:57 +0000 (Mon, 17 Dec 2007)
> New Revision: 16635
>
> Modified:
> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestHandler.java
> Log:
> Fix a silly bug which might have weird effects
>
> Modified: trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestHandler.java
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestHandler.java 2007-12-17
> 00:11:18 UTC (rev 16634)
> +++ trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestHandler.java 2007-12-17
> 00:11:57 UTC (rev 16635)
> @@ -246,13 +246,13 @@
> } else {
> sendTerminal(df);
> }
> - return;
> } else {
> if(!rs.transferStarted()) {
> Logger.error(this, "Status is SUCCESS
> but we never started a
> transfer on "+uid);
> }
> // Wait for transfer to start
> }
> + return;
> case RequestSender.VERIFY_FAILURE:
> if(key instanceof NodeCHK) {
> if(shouldHaveStartedTransfer)
>
I'm not so sure... when I was reviewing the code earlier the comment
"wait for transfer to start" made me think this was intentional.
Specifically, that the code will loop and consider it again?
Certainly returning immediately is not waiting for the transfer to
start, although... as written it would simply run on into the
VERIFY_FAILURE action, and I wouldn't think that would be desired.
--
Robert Hailey
