[pacman-dev] [PATCH] libalpm: set ret in download files
download_files never set ret on failiure, so even when downloading fails, the transaction goes on to commit and error out. :: Retrieving packages... python-packaging-20.4-4-any.pkg.tar.zst failed to download error: failed retrieving file 'python-packaging-20.4-4-any.pkg.tar.zst' from mirror.oldsql.cc : The requested URL returned error: 404 warning: failed to retrieve some files (1/1) checking keys in keyring (1/1) checking package integrity error: failed to commit transaction (wrong or NULL argument passed) Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded. Also make the ret checking more consistent. diff --git a/lib/libalpm/sync.c b/lib/libalpm/sync.c index 601f1d69..5d8652a5 100644 --- a/lib/libalpm/sync.c +++ b/lib/libalpm/sync.c @@ -769,7 +769,7 @@ static int download_files(alpm_handle_t *handle) } ret = find_dl_candidates(handle, &files); - if(ret) { + if(ret != 0) { goto finish; } @@ -818,7 +818,9 @@ static int download_files(alpm_handle_t *handle) payloads = alpm_list_add(payloads, payload); } - if(_alpm_download(handle, payloads, cachedir) == -1) { + + ret = _alpm_download(handle, payloads, cachedir); + if(ret != 0) { event.type = ALPM_EVENT_PKG_RETRIEVE_FAILED; EVENT(handle, &event); _alpm_log(handle, ALPM_LOG_WARNING, _("failed to retrieve some files\n")); -- 2.29.2
Hi On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:21 AM morganamilo <morganamilo@archlinux.org> wrote:
download_files never set ret on failiure, so even when downloading fails, the transaction goes on to commit and error out.
:: Retrieving packages... python-packaging-20.4-4-any.pkg.tar.zst failed to download error: failed retrieving file 'python-packaging-20.4-4-any.pkg.tar.zst' from mirror.oldsql.cc : The requested URL returned error: 404 warning: failed to retrieve some files (1/1) checking keys in keyring (1/1) checking package integrity error: failed to commit transaction (wrong or NULL argument passed) Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.
Also make the ret checking more consistent.
diff --git a/lib/libalpm/sync.c b/lib/libalpm/sync.c index 601f1d69..5d8652a5 100644 --- a/lib/libalpm/sync.c +++ b/lib/libalpm/sync.c @@ -769,7 +769,7 @@ static int download_files(alpm_handle_t *handle) }
ret = find_dl_candidates(handle, &files); - if(ret) { + if(ret != 0) { goto finish; }
"if(ret)" is semantically equivalent to "if(ret != 0)". Is the change really needed here?
@@ -818,7 +818,9 @@ static int download_files(alpm_handle_t *handle)
payloads = alpm_list_add(payloads, payload); } - if(_alpm_download(handle, payloads, cachedir) == -1) { + + ret = _alpm_download(handle, payloads, cachedir); + if(ret != 0) {
This part LGTM.
On 30/11/2020 7:02 pm, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
"if(ret)" is semantically equivalent to "if(ret != 0)". Is the change really needed here?
I don't particularity care what format is used, just as long as they're all the same. Comparing against 0 was already used twice in that file so just thought I'd make that one do it too.
participants (3)
-
Anatol Pomozov
-
Morgan Adamiec
-
morganamilo