Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> If the editor is invoked without a controlling terminal, then
> saving the state and restoring it later is not very useful and
> could generate signals that the invoking process wouldn't know
> how to handle.
>
> if git's standard output is not connected to a terminal, then
> presume there is no need to worry if the invoking terminal could
> garble it.
Shouldn't the logic apply equally to all callers of save_term()?
In other words, why aren't we doing this check inside save_term()
implementation? i.e. before opening /dev/tty, we can do isatty(1)
and return -1 if it is false, or something? That way, when we gain
the second caller to save/restore other than editor (prehaps the
pager code path wants to do this? I dunno), we do not have to
remember that isatty() check must be made before doing save_term(),
no?
In any case, I am quite tempted to just revert the offending topic
for now, but later accept a resurrection patch with this isatty
check rolled in (either at this caller, or inside save_term) when
the dust settles.
Thanks.
> Reported-by: Alexander Veit <alexander.veit@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> editor.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/editor.c b/editor.c
> index 674309eed8..214e3834cb 100644
> --- a/editor.c
> +++ b/editor.c
> @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ static int launch_specified_editor(const char *editor, const char *path,
> p.env = env;
> p.use_shell = 1;
> p.trace2_child_class = "editor";
> - term_fail = save_term(1);
> + term_fail = isatty(1) ? save_term(1) : 1;
> if (start_command(&p) < 0) {
> if (!term_fail)
> restore_term();
