Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Provide better output on toltecctl uninstall #692
base: testing
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Provide better output on toltecctl uninstall #692
Changes from 25 commits
f0c8013
71c5462
46ab86b
99fb2f6
c3dba52
1649a09
f10380a
25372bd
f45e08b
03d090e
90d6117
ecee049
325cd4d
8937f96
038d359
b7e1753
44228c5
0e024aa
94af3c3
08c582d
ea59852
fcedcd4
2645de9
a11076d
9c24c05
c96df00
30663b7
dcf6d73
52b100e
96720a3
8deff1c
7604217
54d5dcb
3cd792e
3e5c0a1
118c9a1
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
completed vs complete, wrong variable names
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You seem to be reviewing an outdated version, this is
$complete
for me when I lookThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, I'm reviewing patches in order, not a full diff. I'm more used to a workflow where a PR is force updated instead of incremental patches and a squash afterwards.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also I think there is operator order issue here:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since they are declared as local it could be that they aren't working as expected. Although when I tested this originally it was working as I expected.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think local makes any difference here,
!
has higher priority than&&
hence it applies only to VAR1 and from the look of it you wanted to apply it to the whole expression (V1 && V2 && V3)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would have wrapped it in
(
and)
if I was trying to apply it to all of them, I'm checking if not complete, and success and clean. success/clean are true by default and get changed to false when something else handles reporting an error.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, ok then. From reading the code it looked to me like you are looking for a failure scenario (e.g. at least one of those vars is false).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In this case, I'm only wanting to handle the error if the error handler is triggered and we did not complete the uninstall, and nothing set success or clean to false due to their own error handling.
It is less than ideal, thus the extra comments on the variable declarations. I couldn't really come up with a cleaner way to handle this with the limitations bash has on error handling.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would have to analyze this fully to check the logic completely. I'm too tired now.
What I did find though is that you make a dep between
clean
andsuccess
so checking both in this line might be at least redundant.https://github.com/toltec-dev/toltec/blob/Eeems-patch-10/package/toltec-bootstrap/toltecctl#L885
But I'm not able to check the logic fully now.