Re: [PATCH] run-command: report exec failure
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Dec 11, 2018, 10:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20181211102309.GF31588@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqd0q8liow.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 02:46:07PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> In 321fd823 ("run-command: mark path lookup errors with ENOENT",
> 2018-10-24), we rewrote the logic to execute a command by looking
> in the directories on $PATH; as a side effect, a request to run a
> command that is not found on $PATH is noticed even before a child
> process is forked to execute it.
>
> We however stopped to report an exec failure in such a case by
> mistake. Add a logic to report the error unless silent-exec-failure
> is requested, to match the original code.
>
> Reported-by: John Passaro <john.a.passaro@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>Ah, thanks, I didn't see this before writing my other message. The commit message and fix look good to me.
Show 5 quoted lines
> * Strictly speaking, the failure that is diagnosed by the spawned > child is reported with die() and prefixed with "failure:"; I am > adding error_errno(), so this will be reported with "error:" > prefix, which is a slight change in behaviour, but I am guessing > that this should be OK.
Yes, IMHO that's fine. Arguably the in-child version should say "error:", too, as the fact that there is a second process is purely an implementation detail (and not even true on Windows, or if we were to start using posix_spawn).
Show 12 quoted lines
> diff --git a/t/t0061-run-command.sh b/t/t0061-run-command.sh > index cf932c8514..9c83d44d9c 100755 > --- a/t/t0061-run-command.sh > +++ b/t/t0061-run-command.sh > @@ -13,11 +13,13 @@ cat >hello-script <<-EOF > EOF > > test_expect_success 'start_command reports ENOENT (slash)' ' > - test-tool run-command start-command-ENOENT ./does-not-exist > + test-tool run-command start-command-ENOENT ./does-not-exist 2>err && > + test_i18ngrep "cannot run" err > '
This one is already correct before the patch, but I agree it's a good idea to test it. Here (and in the others), grepping for "does-not-exist" would be slightly more robust against us later changing the error message, but it's probably not a big deal in practice.
Thanks again for a quick fix for my bug.
-Peff