From: Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:09:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Git bisect run should check for the existence of the script
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 :
> 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