diff options
author | Joey Hess <joeyh@joeyh.name> | 2015-02-10 13:10:58 -0400 |
---|---|---|
committer | Joey Hess <joeyh@joeyh.name> | 2015-02-10 13:10:58 -0400 |
commit | 2f1556e4c7acb67ac867b89f9c7dacbd485ca66b (patch) | |
tree | 220cc9756ed7e365d278021064abdb1c9c396238 /doc/bugs | |
parent | 10c642ed4982d8fdfb3f85a10bfe4ca6c97bb355 (diff) |
fsck --from: If a download from a remote fails, propigate the failure.
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/bugs')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/bugs/fsck_of_special_remotes_incorrectly_reports_ok.mdwn | 1 | ||||
-rw-r--r-- | doc/bugs/fsck_of_special_remotes_incorrectly_reports_ok/comment_1_b76598aebcaccf1e1065dc6372a333ab._comment | 26 |
2 files changed, 27 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/bugs/fsck_of_special_remotes_incorrectly_reports_ok.mdwn b/doc/bugs/fsck_of_special_remotes_incorrectly_reports_ok.mdwn index 809725127..fb0f84150 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/fsck_of_special_remotes_incorrectly_reports_ok.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/fsck_of_special_remotes_incorrectly_reports_ok.mdwn @@ -33,3 +33,4 @@ Not really sure, but rerunning the commands show that the openBinaryFile happens built using Homebrew (i.e. in a cabal sandbox) on OS X Yosemite 10.10.1 +> [[fixed|done]] as described in comment --[[Joey]] diff --git a/doc/bugs/fsck_of_special_remotes_incorrectly_reports_ok/comment_1_b76598aebcaccf1e1065dc6372a333ab._comment b/doc/bugs/fsck_of_special_remotes_incorrectly_reports_ok/comment_1_b76598aebcaccf1e1065dc6372a333ab._comment new file mode 100644 index 000000000..52f42ba89 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/fsck_of_special_remotes_incorrectly_reports_ok/comment_1_b76598aebcaccf1e1065dc6372a333ab._comment @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 1""" + date="2015-02-10T17:04:10Z" + content=""" +So, what's going on here is: + +* fsck first calls hasKey to check if the remote has the key +* It does, so it proceeds to try to download the file +* This fails for whatever reason (probably a transient network error + in the first example, and a bug in your code in the second) +* So, fsck bypasses checking the checksum, and just assumes that + hasKey was right, the key is present in the remote. + +Question is, should it instead assume hasKey is innaccurate, +and mark the remote as no longer containing the file jut because +it failed to download it once? + +I don't think so. This would mean that fsck --from networkremote +and then dropping network connection in the middle of the file +download would mark the file as not present on the remote any longer. + +I think though, that it would make sense for fsck to propigate an +error in this case. It can leave the location log as-is, but not +assume "ok". +"""]] |