Re: [PATCH] difftool: honor --trust-exit-code for builtin tools

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com> writes:

> run_merge_tool() was not setting $status, which prevented the
> exit code for builtin tools from being forwarded to the caller.
>
> Capture the exit status and add a test to guarantee the behavior.
>
> Reported-by: Adria Farres <14farresa@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com>
> ---
>  git-mergetool--lib.sh | 1 +
>  t/t7800-difftool.sh   | 5 +++++
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/git-mergetool--lib.sh b/git-mergetool--lib.sh
> index a40d3df..2b66351 100644
> --- a/git-mergetool--lib.sh
> +++ b/git-mergetool--lib.sh
> @@ -221,6 +221,7 @@ run_merge_tool () {
>  	else
>  		run_diff_cmd "$1"
>  	fi
> +	status=$?
>  	return $status
>  }

Thanks for a quick turn-around.  As a hot-fix for what is already in
-rc I am fine with this fix but the patch makes me wonder if $status
as a global shell variable has any significance.

I see that this shell function in its early part does this:

	status=0
        setup_tool "$1" || return 1

which means that the caller of this function, instead of checking
what is returned as the return value of the function like:

	if run_merge_tool ...
        then
		...

relies on the value of $status in its later part of the code like:

	run_merge_tool ...
	...
	if test "$status" = 0
	then
		...

then we are already in trouble.  And the latter form, if we had such
a flow in the code, is simply a bad taste.

A cleaner fix might be to get rid of the extra $status variable from
this function and let the function return the result of its last
command, either run_merge_cmd or run_diff_cmd, by either explicitly
having "return $?" at the end, or not having that "return $status"
line.  But that relies on us not having any caller that relies on
the $status carried as a global variable around, so it will be more
work to convince ourselves that such a fix is correctly done.  From
my cursory look, what I suggested above should be safe and correct,
but I do not want to risk an unnecessary and silly breakage this
late in the cycle.

So I'll queue this patch as-is for upcoming 2.2, but I think we
would want to revisit this issue after the release is done.