On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 06:18 +0000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> Review: Approve
> This looks ok to me but I wouldn't mind a second opinion. My main concern is that we've been moving away from methods that mutate inventories (like inv.add()) in favour of generating new ones via create_by_apply_delta(). I *think* the code is all ok in this context but I'd like John and/or Robert (say) to confirm that.
This function already works with full inventories.
It would be good to make it issue an inventory delta rather than direct
mutation, but this patch doesn't need to block on that.
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 06:18 +0000, Ian Clatworthy wrote: by_apply_ delta() . I *think* the code is all ok in this context but I'd like John and/or Robert (say) to confirm that.
> Review: Approve
> This looks ok to me but I wouldn't mind a second opinion. My main concern is that we've been moving away from methods that mutate inventories (like inv.add()) in favour of generating new ones via create_
This function already works with full inventories.
It would be good to make it issue an inventory delta rather than direct
mutation, but this patch doesn't need to block on that.
-Rob