Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] bisect--helper: double-check run command on exit code 126 and 127
From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <hidden>
Date: 2022-02-04 18:09:58
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2022-02-04 · Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] bisect--helper: double-check run command on exit code 126 and 127 · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2022-02-04 · Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] bisect--helper: double-check run command on exit code 126 and 127 · Ramkumar Ramachandra <hidden>
- 2022-02-04 · Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] bisect--helper: double-check run command on exit code 126 and 127 · René Scharfe <hidden>
- 2022-02-04 · Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] bisect--helper: double-check run command on exit code 126 and 127 · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
René Scharfe wrote:
The workaround used by this patch is to run the command on a known-good revision and abort if we still get the same error code. This adds one step to runs with scripts that use exit codes 126 and 127, but keeps them supported, with one exception: It won't work with commands that cannot recognize the (manually marked) known-good revision as such. Run commands that use low exit codes are unaffected. Typos are reported after executing the missing command twice and three checkouts (the first step, the known good revision and back to the revision of the first step).
I'm happy with the description of this patch. It doesn't add an extra step for an overwhelming majority of users, while not breaking backward compatibility.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- a/builtin/bisect--helper.c +++ b/builtin/bisect--helper.c@@ -1089,6 +1089,44 @@ static int bisect_visualize(struct bisect_terms *terms, const char **argv, int a +static int get_first_good(const char *refname, const struct object_id *oid, + int flag, void *cb_data) +{ + oidcpy(cb_data, oid); + return 1;
I assume you return 1 here to stop the for_each_glob_ref() iteration, after copying the oid.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -1113,6 +1152,30 @@ static int bisect_run(struct bisect_terms *terms, const char **argv, int argc) + int rc = verify_good(terms, run_args.v); + is_first_run = 0; + if (rc < 0) { + error(_("unable to verify '%s' on good" + " revision"), command.buf);
Perhaps in a subsequent patch, we can consider sha1_abbrev() to print nicer messages everywhere in bisect.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh index fc18796517..5382e5d216 100755 --- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh +++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect run accepts exit code 126 as bad' ' -test_expect_failure POSIXPERM 'bisect run fails with non-executable test script' ' +test_expect_success POSIXPERM 'bisect run fails with non-executable test script' '
-test_expect_failure 'bisect run fails with missing test script' ' +test_expect_success 'bisect run fails with missing test script' '
Yes, these are precisely the two problems I had. Thanks. Warm regards, Ram