From: Philippe Altherr <philippe.altherr@gmail.com>
To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Cc: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: Inconsistent behavior of ERR_EXIT with conditionals
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 15:22:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGdYchs0s1imH_WJ2-kW218OKKwWAyWAmx3WK=TtBoDgrFdgjQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH+w=7a_yhcrGD3b5LvZ4HiUKJgaCWh5uyRiCfxbQRMz9Jpdbw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3290 bytes --]
>
> Neither of these is a situation where the developer should have been
> relying on errexit to save them.
My ultimate point with that example was to demonstrate that ERR_EXIT
doesn't achieve my goal.
My goal is to be able to run a Zsh script with the guarantee that if
anything goes wrong the script stops immediately where by "anything goes
wrong" I mean any command whose result is not otherwise checked returns a
non-zero exit status. If you don't agree that this would be a useful
feature, then we can stop the discussion.
If you think that ERR_EXIT achieves my goal, then it would be useful if you
could give me an example of a legitimate use of/reliance on ERR_EXIT. I
could then try to build a better example to demonstrate that ERR_EXIT is
not achieving my goal. If I fail to convince you that ERR_EXIT does not
achieve my goal, then too we can stop the discussion.
I would abstain from the decision and leave it to others, but I don't
> believe it can be done without some rather invasive changes.
Indeed, that remains an open question to me and I agree that the new option
shouldn't be added if it requires too much additional complexity.
Philippe
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 7:00 AM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 8:11 PM Philippe Altherr
> <philippe.altherr@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The first developer is wrong. That's not what -e is for. A script
> >> should be correct WITHOUT the use of -e ... the purpose of -e is to
> >> uncover cases where the developer made a mistake, not to be an
> >> integral part of the script function.
> >
> > I can agree with that but consider that the developer's mistake was to
> use a ";" instead of an "&&" in the "backup" function.
>
> No, that wasn't his mistake. His mistake was to not explicitly call
> "exit" on failure of scp and instead rely on errexit to bail out of
> the backup function.
>
> The second developer's mistake was changing ; to && following the call
> to the backup function without actually understanding how the backup
> function (didn't) work. *If* errexit worked the way you want, the &&
> test would be spurious anyway, because either the function would have
> returned the status of "echo" (always success) or would have died
> without getting that far.
>
> Neither of these is a situation where the developer should have been
> relying on errexit to save them.
>
> > My broader point was that the same error (or developer mistake) in a
> function "foo" triggers an exit if "foo" is called from a plain statement
> but not if it's called from within a condition. Wouldn't you agree that
> it's unfortunate that the same error/mistake may or may not trigger an exit
> depending on whether it's executed outside or inside a condition?
>
> I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's the same mistake. What's
> unfortunate is that you're relying on a Deus ex machina to save your
> script from disaster.
>
> > Would you agree to add a new shell option if it allows to run Zsh
> scripts such that if any command unexpectedly fails the script immediately
> stops (and its implementation doesn't require too complex changes)?
>
> I would abstain from the decision and leave it to others, but I don't
> believe it can be done without some rather invasive changes.
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4377 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-09 14:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-04 16:37 Philippe Altherr
2022-11-06 20:45 ` Bart Schaefer
2022-11-07 3:50 ` Bart Schaefer
2022-11-07 5:35 ` [PATCH] " Bart Schaefer
2022-11-07 9:44 ` Peter Stephenson
2022-11-08 1:20 ` Bart Schaefer
2022-11-08 4:58 ` Philippe Altherr
2022-11-08 5:36 ` Bart Schaefer
2022-11-08 8:04 ` Lawrence Velázquez
2022-11-08 18:51 ` Philippe Altherr
2022-11-08 19:20 ` Lawrence Velázquez
2022-11-08 23:28 ` Bart Schaefer
2022-11-09 4:11 ` Philippe Altherr
2022-11-09 6:00 ` Bart Schaefer
2022-11-09 14:22 ` Philippe Altherr [this message]
2022-11-10 1:00 ` Bart Schaefer
2022-11-10 5:09 ` Bart Schaefer
2022-11-11 3:04 ` Philippe Altherr
2022-11-11 4:06 ` Lawrence Velázquez
2022-11-11 4:09 ` Eric Cook
2022-11-08 23:11 ` Bart Schaefer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAGdYchs0s1imH_WJ2-kW218OKKwWAyWAmx3WK=TtBoDgrFdgjQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=philippe.altherr@gmail.com \
--cc=schaefer@brasslantern.com \
--cc=zsh-workers@zsh.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).