On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 08:16:01PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2022, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 07:38:35PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2022, Michal Prívozník wrote:
On 1/20/22 18:23, Ani Sinha wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 21:29 Michal Prívozník <mprivozn@redhat.com <mailto:mprivozn@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 1/20/22 16:48, Ani Sinha wrote: > >
> > AKA kicking the can one more time 🙃
Well, I should have been more careful and not merge the patch in the first place. Changing API behavior is something we should never do.
Looking at the code closer, it looks like all callers of this function would need to ignore the reported error so that their behavior is not changed. At this point, does it make sense to report an error in the function?
The callers can decide what do with the error raised by the function. We should not write functions that cannot fail.
But that's not what the commit does, is it. It changed some public APIs from best effort to fail early.
That is the side effect and I consider it as a bug. Imagine we add some more code into that function tomorrow and there is an error path. Now because of this bug, we will have to ignore the error condition and not report it. How ridiculous is that?
We should have kept the patch as is and fix the callers so that the public APIs were not broken.
That is not the libvirt approach. Our #1 priority is public API compatibility, everything else is subservient to that. So when we have a regression we fix that in the quickest possible way. Simply reverting the broken patch>
(a) I take exception to the fact that the patch reverted was "broken".
Did you actually read the bug report in the first message in this series ? An end user hit a behaviour regression breaking the installation process, and was caused by the patch that's been reverted. I'm not saying the patch didn't have a good motiviation behind what it was trying to achieve, but the end result was a unfortunately a regresion in the public API in libvirt that impacted our users. That clearly qualfies for being called 'broken'. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|