Lea Wiemann [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
There was a bug in the implementation of the "next" links in
format_paging_nav (for log and shortlog), which caused the next links
to always be displayed, even if there is no next page. This fixes it.
Signed-off-by: Lea Wiemann <redacted>
---
gitweb/gitweb.perl | 8 ++++----
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gitweb/gitweb.perl b/gitweb/gitweb.perl
index 308fde2..874f53a 100755
--- a/gitweb/gitweb.perl
+++ b/gitweb/gitweb.perl
@@ -2752,7 +2752,7 @@ sub git_print_page_nav {
}
sub format_paging_nav {
- my ($action, $hash, $head, $page, $has_more_pages) = @_;
+ my ($action, $hash, $head, $page, $has_next_link) = @_;
my $paging_nav;
@@ -2770,7 +2770,7 @@ sub format_paging_nav {
$paging_nav .= " ⋅ prev";
}
- if ($has_more_pages) {
+ if ($has_next_link) {
$paging_nav .= " ⋅ " .
$cgi->a({-href => href(-replay=>1, page=>$page+1),
-accesskey => "n", -title => "Alt-n"}, "next");
This looks like a no-op hunk, unless format_paging_nav sub has other uses
of $has_more_pages variable. But the copies of gitweb I have do not begin
with these lines, but they begin like this:
sub format_paging_nav {
my ($action, $hash, $head, $page, $nrevs) = @_;
my $paging_nav;
On what version is your patch based on? I checked warthog9's copy and
that also seems to be different.
quoted hunk
@@ -4661,7 +4661,7 @@ sub git_log {
my @commitlist = parse_commits($hash, 101, (100 * $page));
- my $paging_nav = format_paging_nav('log', $hash, $head, $page, $#commitlist > 99);
+ my $paging_nav = format_paging_nav('log', $hash, $head, $page, $#commitlist >= 100);
git_header_html();
git_print_page_nav('log','', $hash,undef,undef, $paging_nav);@@ -5581,7 +5581,7 @@ sub git_shortlog {
my @commitlist = parse_commits($hash, 101, (100 * $page));
- my $paging_nav = format_paging_nav('shortlog', $hash, $head, $page, $#commitlist > 99);
+ my $paging_nav = format_paging_nav('shortlog', $hash, $head, $page, $#commitlist >= 100);
my $next_link = '';
if ($#commitlist >= 100) {
$next_link =
I am not very good at counting, but the change looks no-op to me. Either
the last index of the list variable is strictly larger than 99, or it is
100 or greater --- aren't they the same thing?
A bit confused I am...