Re: [evolution-patches] patch for #42212

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo ximian com>]

On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 16:03, JP Rosevear wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 06:21, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 01:29, JP Rosevear wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 18:22, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 18:30, JP Rosevear wrote:
> > > > > If we're going to making passing a null string an invalid param, we need
> > > > > to check everywhere that we don't pass a null param in.
> > > > > 
> > > > all callers of e_uri_new are expected to check the return value, since
> > > > the URI might be an invalid one. A grep over the sources shows that all
> > > > cases check for the return value.
> > > 
> > > Yes, but g_return_val_if_fail implies that a NULL uri string should
> > > never be passed in at all.  If its allowed, then the check should be
> > > 
> > > if (!string)
> > >     return;
> > > 
> > > or something similar.
> > > 
> > right, new patch attached
> 
> Looks good.  Note that until this time, we could never return NULL from
> this function afaict.
> 
yeah, we couldn't, but as I said in my previous mail, and double-checked
now, all users of e_uri_new check the return value.

So, committed.