Re: [PATCH] difftool: honor --trust-exit-code for builtin tools
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 14, 2014, 21:51 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqy4rd1mdw.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1416000835-79274-1-git-send-email-davvid@gmail.com>
David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com> writes:
Show 23 quoted lines
> run_merge_tool() was not setting $status, which prevented the
> exit code for builtin tools from being forwarded to the caller.
>
> Capture the exit status and add a test to guarantee the behavior.
>
> Reported-by: Adria Farres <14farresa@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com>
> ---
> git-mergetool--lib.sh | 1 +
> t/t7800-difftool.sh | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/git-mergetool--lib.sh b/git-mergetool--lib.sh
> index a40d3df..2b66351 100644
> --- a/git-mergetool--lib.sh
> +++ b/git-mergetool--lib.sh
> @@ -221,6 +221,7 @@ run_merge_tool () {
> else
> run_diff_cmd "$1"
> fi
> + status=$?
> return $status
> }Thanks for a quick turn-around. As a hot-fix for what is already in -rc I am fine with this fix but the patch makes me wonder if $status as a global shell variable has any significance.
I see that this shell function in its early part does this:
status=0
setup_tool "$1" || return 1which means that the caller of this function, instead of checking what is returned as the return value of the function like:
if run_merge_tool ...
then
...relies on the value of $status in its later part of the code like:
run_merge_tool ... ... if test "$status" = 0 then ...
then we are already in trouble. And the latter form, if we had such a flow in the code, is simply a bad taste.
A cleaner fix might be to get rid of the extra $status variable from this function and let the function return the result of its last command, either run_merge_cmd or run_diff_cmd, by either explicitly having "return $?" at the end, or not having that "return $status" line. But that relies on us not having any caller that relies on the $status carried as a global variable around, so it will be more work to convince ourselves that such a fix is correctly done. From my cursory look, what I suggested above should be safe and correct, but I do not want to risk an unnecessary and silly breakage this late in the cycle.
So I'll queue this patch as-is for upcoming 2.2, but I think we would want to revisit this issue after the release is done.