Closed erikleitch closed 9 years ago
Is .rebar/erlcinfo an intentional check-in ? I do not know its function.
+1 once .rebar/erlcinfo explained or removed.
.rebar/erclinfo not intentional -- got checked in by accident at some point & I removed it from a later branch. Will make sure it's removed from the merge
When you commit the change to delete .rebar/erclinfo, would you include an edit to .gitignore that explicitly lists that file. Might as well protect against the next time ...
Thank you.
Yup. Good idea.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Matthew Von-Maszewski < notifications@github.com> wrote:
When you commit the change to delete .rebar/erclinfo, would you include an edit to .gitignore that explicitly lists that file. Might as well protect against the next time ...
Thank you.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/basho/eleveldb/pull/161#issuecomment-149634931.
… indicator from riak_kv). Modified filter to return false when evaluated against a missing field value, instead of throw. Modified unit tests to reflect the change in behavior.
Note:
The filtering code was originally developed under the direction that missing fields should be an error. This PR changes that behavior so that filters that reference missing fields evaluate to false, instead of throwing an error.
Summary of changes:
1) added code in CmpUtil to detect empty list encoding in msgpack 2) added code in extractor.cc to check for empty fields while decoding msgpack 3) modified all binary filter operators in filter.h to return false in evaluate() rather than throw if a field has no value 4) modified unit tests in sut.erl to reflect the new behavior