Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | should progress service run error handlers if task fails? | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [ECD] Orion | Reporter: | Susan McCourt <susan> |
| Component: | Client | Assignee: | Malgorzata Janczarska <malgorzata.tomczyk> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | ||
| Version: | 0.3 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 7.0 | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Windows 7 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 344012 | ||
|
Description
Susan McCourt
assigning to Gosia while she reviews progress API. The original bug was about adding more progress indication to tasks, and this question is really a separate question. I'll look at it tomorrow. You found an important issue that needs to be rethought and I think unified. Task can now fail in two ways: 1. Task is scheduled, returning 201 and then one of the responses from progress service contains "error" indicating that task failed. But still the responose has status===200 2. Task is not scheduled, but we get the result straight away. This means we can also get an error (status !== 200 && status !==201) Good that you made a fix in commit 0f965d7f230d4004a0eb9af3fdf93258f114e5f7 (new file and new folder operations could use progress indicator, add errback to progress handler), because case "2" was until now swallowed. But I think we still need to return it in somehow. Look at merge command in gitCommands.js it tried to solve this problem. But I think this should be somehow unified, so that we don't have to add double error handling like in merge command. The answer for this question is part of bug 344012 work. Looks like this problem was solved. |