On Fri, Feb 18 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> -int run_commit_hook(int editor_is_used, const char *index_file, const char *name, ...); >> +int run_commit_hook(int editor_is_used, const char *index_file, >> + int *invoked_hook, const char *name, ...); >> > > Even though my gut feeling tells me that turning the "yes/no" > integer into an enum that includes "there was no such hook", "I > tried to run it, but it failed to run" [*], "I ran it and it was > happy". would be a more viable approach for the longer term, I > guess this extra and ad-hoc parameter would be sufficient as a > shorter term improvement. > > Side note: optionally "failed to run" may be split into "failed > to even start (e.g. ENOEXEC)" and "started successfully but > exited with non-zero status". There may or may not be callers > that wants to see them as distinct cases right now, but an > interface based on returned enum value would be easier to extend > than having to add a pointer to return variable every time we > need to know more details. Yes, I debated with myself whether I should add some more generic interface to it, and decided just to do the bare minumum of adding something the "struct run_hooks_opt". FWIW the "yes/no" is not that, run_commit_hook() just returns the value of run_hooks_opt(), which is currently either an <0 error, or the status code from the hook. I.e. what gets passed to the "task_finished_fn" callback for run_processes_parallel_tr2(). I.e. the finish_command() return value. We do cover the "ENOEXEC" case in ignoring it, since if we fail on startup we won't say we ran the hook. I think in practice what'll matter is this "invoked_hook". I.e. if we failed to parse our config, the hook wasn't executable or whatever that's just a <0 error, and we didn't run the hook. Or, if we ran it at all (even if it failed) we'll know that we need to e.g. discard_index(), since we can't guarantee that the hook didn't get that far that we'll need to update our own assumptions. A caller who ares about anything else will also need to deal with a lot more complexity once we have config-based-hooks / parallel hooks by default. I.e. was that ENOEXEC one of N hooks, all of them, did all/one exit non-zero etc? Whereas "int *invoked_hook" we can just set as long as we invoked any of them at all.
