Re: Git bisect run should check for the existence of the script
- From
- Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr>
- Date
- Jul 17, 2020, 15:09 UTC
- Message-ID
- <8c683b56-d17a-78ce-67bb-477e5b307df9@abou-samra.fr>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq1rlclte2.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
Le 15/07/2020 à 16:55, Junio C Hamano a écrit :
Show 24 quoted lines
> Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr> writes: > >> $ git bisect run ./non-existent.sh >> running ./non-existent.sh >> /usr/lib/git-core/git-bisect: 247: ./non-existent.sh: not found >> Bisecting: 2 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step) >> [6fc732a2116e2c42b0431bb7e2a21719351af755] Fix typo in docs: 'created >> by th' -> 'created by the' (GH-21384) >> running ./non-existent.sh >> /usr/lib/git-core/git-bisect: 247: ./non-existent.sh: not found >> Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 0 steps) > Yes, it would be nice if "git bisect run" can reliably tell that it > got a "not found" error and not a "test performed by the script did > not pass" and stop at the first failure. > > On the other hand, the "./non-existent.sh" script could be part of > the tracked contents (i.e. some revisions have it and the working > tree has it when they get checked out, some revisions don't and the > working tree does not have it), and the user is trying to find the > first revision that stopped having a working script in its tree. In > such a case, the script that does not exist and the script that fails > need to be treated the same way by "git bisect run" as failures. > > So... I dunno.
Perhapsa --not-found-as-failure option could help?
Best, Jean Abou Samra