Inheritance of trace levels is incorrect

[rhl@…]

After
psTraceSetLevel("A.b.c", 5)
psTracePrintLevels()

. 0

A 5
b 5
c 5

psLib.psTraceGetLevel("A.b.c") = -9999
The correct answer is "5"

Note that the hierarchy is wrong here too, as reported in a previous bug report

rel2_2

[gusciora@…]

Should be fixed in the current CVS version.

[Paul Price]

This is not mentioned explicitly in the SDRS, but the property of inheritance
implies the following behaviour:

Say we have trace levels defined:
. 9

A 9

B 2

Then a call,

psTrace("A.B.C", 0, "This should appear");

should appear, because the level of A.B.C is inherited from A.B
As currently implemented, psTraceGetLevel returns PS_UNKNOWN_TRACE_LEVEL (for
which I recommend renaming to PS_TRACE_UNKNOWN_LEVEL to conform to the naming
convention), which causes the trace not to appear, so I suggest that
psTraceGetLevel returns the level of the closest leaf. Of course, this means
that if the level specified doesn't match anything, the level of the root (".")
should be returned.

[Paul Price]

Verified:

int main(void)
{

psTraceSetLevel("blah", 5);
psTraceSetLevel("blah.blah", 8);

psTrace("blah.blah.blah", 3, "This should appear.\n");
psTrace("blah.blah.blah", 9, "This should NOT appear.\n");

}

==>

This should appear.