Quoth Mark Walters on Apr 16 at 4:53 pm:
>
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Austin Clements <amdragon at MIT.EDU> wrote:
> > Previously, fatal errors in add_files_recursive were not treated as
> > fatal by its callers (including itself!) and add_files_recursive
> > sometimes returned errors on non-fatal conditions. This makes
> > add_files_recursive errors consistently fatal and updates all callers
> > to treat them as fatal.
>
> Hi I have attempted to review this but am feeling a little out of my
> depth. This patch seems fine except for one thing I am unsure about:
>
> > ---
> > notmuch-new.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/notmuch-new.c b/notmuch-new.c
> > index 4f13535..bd9786a 100644
> > --- a/notmuch-new.c
> > +++ b/notmuch-new.c
> > @@ -308,7 +308,6 @@ add_files_recursive (notmuch_database_t *notmuch,
> > if (num_fs_entries == -1) {
> > fprintf (stderr, "Error opening directory %s: %s\n",
> > path, strerror (errno));
> > - ret = NOTMUCH_STATUS_FILE_ERROR;
> > goto DONE;
> > }
> >
>
> If I understand this, then this change makes a failure to open a
> directory non-fatal. In the comment before the function it says
>
> * Also, we don't immediately act on file/directory removal since we
> * must ensure that in the case of a rename that the new filename is
> * added before the old filename is removed, (so that no information
> * is lost from the database).
>
> I am worried that we could fail to find some files because of the
> file error above, and then we delete them from the database. Maybe this
> could only happen if those emails have just been moved to this
> file-error directory?
Hmm. This won't *actively* remove files, since that only happens if
we successfully scan a directory and find a message that's in the
database but not in that directory (*not* scanning the directory won't
add anything to the remove list). However, you are right that if a
message is moved from some other directory into a directory that we
fail to open, that message will be deleted "by omission".
I've added the error back, along with a comment explaining it.
> Best wishes
>
> Mark
>
> > @@ -351,8 +350,10 @@ add_files_recursive (notmuch_database_t *notmuch,
> >
> > next = talloc_asprintf (notmuch, "%s/%s", path, entry->d_name);
> > status = add_files_recursive (notmuch, next, state);
> > - if (status && ret == NOTMUCH_STATUS_SUCCESS)
> > + if (status) {
> > ret = status;
> > + goto DONE;
> > + }
> > talloc_free (next);
> > next = NULL;
> > }
> > @@ -933,6 +934,8 @@ notmuch_new_command (void *ctx, int argc, char *argv[])
> > }
> >
> > ret = add_files (notmuch, db_path, &add_files_state);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto DONE;
> >
> > gettimeofday (&tv_start, NULL);
> > for (f = add_files_state.removed_files->head; f && !interrupted; f =
> > f->next) {
> > @@ -965,6 +968,7 @@ notmuch_new_command (void *ctx, int argc, char *argv[])
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + DONE:
> > talloc_free (add_files_state.removed_files);
> > talloc_free (add_files_state.removed_directories);
> > talloc_free (add_files_state.directory_mtimes);
> > @@ -1012,10 +1016,9 @@ notmuch_new_command (void *ctx, int argc, char
> > *argv[])
> >
> > printf ("\n");
> >
> > - if (ret) {
> > - printf ("\nNote: At least one error was encountered: %s\n",
> > + if (ret)
> > + printf ("\nNote: A fatal error was encountered: %s\n",
> > notmuch_status_to_string (ret));
> > - }
> >
> > notmuch_database_close (notmuch);
