Max Battcher wrote: > Darcs test was build specifically for this. It might be worth adding a > note under pre/post-hooks in the manual that Darcs test exists as a > "mid-hook" in record. As it stands the documentation to figure it out is > spread through Darcs test, Darcs record, and Darcs setpref. > > Darcs test predates pre-/post-hooks, which should explain why it feels so > different/is documented so different.
Ok, can we clarify: is this the "darcs test" command, or is it "darcs <command> --test"? Or something else? Is the darcs setpref necessary or can I also specify a test with a command line switch? Cheers Ben > Sent from my wireless telegraph. Full stop. > ________________________________ > From: Ben Franksen<mailto:ben.frank...@online.de> > Sent: 5/29/2014 17:48 > To: darcs-users@darcs.net<mailto:darcs-users@darcs.net> > Subject: Re: [darcs-users] Return value of hooks > > Dmitry Bogatov wrote: >> It seems, that I can set {pre,post} -hooks for record command, but >> I cannot find a way to use their exit status. > > Well, darcs commands fail immediately if the pre-hook failed. They also > "fail" (that is, return the same exit code) if the post-hook failed. > > However, this is of no use to you, since the pre-hook is run before the > command even starts asking you which changes you want to record. And the > post-hook may fail, and darcs may return the same exit code, but now it is > too late: the changes to the repository are already made, and darcs does > not roll back these changes. > >> What I want, is get `darcs record` to ask me to choose chunks, apply >> them, run test and refuse to record, if it fails. Is it possible? > > That is, you want a post-hook that, if it fails, causes darcs to roll back > any changes it might have made. > >> PS. Sorry for possible duplicate > > I don't think this came up before. It would be a nice feature, but it > would also need some serious re-factoring to implement it. > > As for work-arounds: > > There is darcs unrecord. You can wrap your post-hook into a script that > checks for the failure, then unrecords the patch that just got recorded. > If you want to make this more fail-safe, add a pre-hook that creates a tag > with some unique name, then in case of a post-hook failure, unrecord > everything up to and including this tag. > > Cheers > Ben > -- > "Make it so they have to reboot after every typo." -- Scott Adams > > > _______________________________________________ > darcs-users mailing list > darcs-users@darcs.net > http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users -- "Make it so they have to reboot after every typo." -- Scott Adams _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
