"Francesco Pizzolante" <f...@missioncriticalit.com> writes:
>> IOW, it cannot tell the difference between a successful export and an >> export failure with an already existing PDFFILE. > > This is not true as this code checks for the `errors' variable in all > cases. With an already existing PDFFILE, you will end up with this > message: 'Process completed with errors: ...'. If "file.pdf" exists before the export, you will always get "Process completed", even if the current export was a total failure (e.g., no file produced). IIUC, you're really looking after a way to know if a pdf file was really produced. Reporting "Process completed with errors : [unknown error]" will certainly not help on this you because some errors are not fatal (i.e., they are skipped and the pdf file is still produced). > From my point of view, the issue comes from the fact that the `errors' > variable is not correctly filled in with errors from the LaTeX log file. [...] > While the wikibooks reference > (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Errors_and_Warnings) tells that to > be sure to catch *all* errors, we have to check for any line beginning > with '!'. I agree, but this is not sufficient, see below. > Then, in the case where the `errors' variable would effectively contain > any error from the log file, the code you mention above would work in > any case. > > That's why I started with this patch (*and it works*): It depends on what you define as "working". We're talking about two different things. I think a better error system should report: 1. a PDF file not produced (or updated), 2. a PDF file produced with errors, 3. a PDF file produced with warnings (maybe), 4. a PDF file produced cleanly. 4 already works. Your patch improves 2, but 1 is still wrong. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
