Wrap libsolv Transaction #2554
Wrap libsolv Transaction #2554
Conversation
AntoinePrv
force-pushed
the
solv-transaction
branch
2 times, most recently
from
8bd809e
to
3fbbecb
Compare
AntoinePrv
force-pushed
the
solv-transaction
branch
from
b053abd
to
5427be2
Compare
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| auto ObjTransaction::from_solver(const ObjPool& pool, const ObjSolver& solver) -> ObjTransaction |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to force / be sure the user instantiated a pool before calling this method, and the pool he's using matches the one form the solver? Or is it just a sanity check?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's both? The libsolv type captures the pool by pointer so we make sure it cannot be used without the pool by asking to pass it as an argument (note the destructor does not need the pool).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You cannot create this type without a Pool, whatever constructor function would use the pool through a capture.
| * | ||
| * Negative solvable ids are use to mean that the solvable must be removed. | ||
| */ | ||
| [[nodiscard]] static auto from_solvables(const ObjPool& pool, const ObjQueue& solvables) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nitpicking: I think we should put the [[nodiscard]] static qualifiers on a dedicated line to keep methods alignment with trailing return syntax.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, but this should be done in .clang-format (not sure we can), otherwise it will always be overwriten.
|
I was reviewing ^^; But no comment LGTM 👍 |
No description provided.