On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 02:58:05PM -0700, Brock Pytlik wrote: > Brock Pytlik wrote: > >Is it possible to catch the exception more specifically? I'd feel better > >catching the ReadError specifically rather than any and all exceptions. > > > >Also, one nit, please make the comment "are no files" or "is no file". > > > >On a larger scale, I'm not intimately familiar with this code, but I > >can't figure out why we're retrieving a file by hash when the only > >action is a depend action. From what I can tell from the action code, > >dependency actions shouldn't have a hash attribute at all. So I'm > >confused why we're even touching this code with the examples given. > > > >I'm probably just having a brain freeze, but can you help me understand > >what's going on here? > > > > > Ok, after poking around the code more, wouldn't the easiest thing to do > be to just check whether hashes (in fetch_files_byhash) or > content_hashes (in main_func) have a length of at least 1 before trying > to open the tarfile? Really, can't the entire call to fetch_files_byhash > be skipped if content_hashes is empty, and wouldn't that fix this > problem without needing the try catch block at all? > > Brock
OK, Brock is right. The new webrev only calls fetch_files_byhash if content_hashes has a length > 0. Here's the link again: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~bgh/bug-2104/ Thanks, Brad _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
