| Summary: | [publisher] Allow fail on error in publishers | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] Equinox | Reporter: | Tobias Oberlies <t-oberlies> |
| Component: | p2 | Assignee: | P2 Inbox <equinox.p2-inbox> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | irbull, kane.mx, kane.zhu, pascal |
| Version: | 3.7 | Keywords: | helpwanted |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 325611, 342198, 364855 | ||
|
Description
Tobias Oberlies
These bugs propose introducing new warnings/errors in the publishers: bug 342198, bug 331683, bug 325611 Once we have agreed on a concept (in this bug), they should be easy to fix. Given that the IPublisherAction#perform returns an IStatus, your suggested implementation makes sense. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether we really want to preserve the old behaviour. After all people use to get bad metadata without noticing and we are now making them a favour in telling them earlier. What could be interesting is adding a verbose mode to the various publisher apps so one could see the non fatal errors like warnings / infos. (In reply to comment #0) > My idea for implementing this is to > - return all errors & warnings in the MultiStatus returned by the publishers, > - identify errors/warnings with a type and error code, I like them. > - provide methods that answer the question whether a MultiStatus used to be > fatal in Indigo. It might be a bit complicated. Publisher mostly is used as a standalone application. It should return error code to caller if something wrong happened in publishing process. The caller script or application can know whether it's indeed failed or not. (In reply to comment #2) > The only thing I'm not sure about is whether we really want to preserve the old > behaviour. After all people use to get bad metadata without noticing and we are > now making them a favour in telling them earlier. This makes sense. We really shouldn't be ignoring things which are really errors. And as long as we don't have a concrete case where the definition of what is an error differs for different users, we don't need to implement the compatibility layer proposed here. |