On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Robert Hailey <robert at emu.freenetproject.org> [2007-12-17 11:07:55]:
>
>>
>> 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
> ...
>
> Which is sending an FNPRejectedOverload message... That's definitly
> not
> what we want to do in that case.
>
> Let's "continue" instead... see r16659
>
> NextGen$
I'm still confused by that comment. If we continue & loop, will the
status ever change from SUCCESS? And why is this behavior so much
different from a SSK block?
--
Robert Hailey
