Error 95 should say which operation

[Ted Gould]

I'm working with a bazaar repository over a Samba share, which is well, fun. One of the things that I'm getting regularly in getting this set up is an "error 95" -- and reading elsewhere I understand that it is basically the error from the filesystem, which bazaar can't do anything about. But, what I think that Bazaar can do is tell which operation is having the problem. So, in this case instead of the error being:

    bzr: ERROR: [Errno 95] Operation not supported:

it should be

    bzr: ERROR: [Errno 95] Operation 'chmod' not supported:

Which would be enough information for me to continue debugging without using strace. Thanks!

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 04:49 +0000, Ted Gould wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
>
> I'm working with a bazaar repository over a Samba share, which is well, fun. One of the things that I'm getting regularly in getting this set up is an "error 95" -- and reading elsewhere I understand that it is basically the error from the filesystem, which bazaar can't do anything about. But, what I think that Bazaar can do is tell which operation is having the problem. So, in this case instead of the error being:
>
> bzr: ERROR: [Errno 95] Operation not supported:
>
> it should be
>
> bzr: ERROR: [Errno 95] Operation 'chmod' not supported:
>
> Which would be enough information for me to continue debugging without
> using strace. Thanks!

I don't think this is easily feasible - the error is raised by python,
not by bzr. We could do backtrace introspect foo, but that is really
quite complex to do robustly and reliably with C extensions and all.

However, to debug without strace is easy - just run with -Derror, then
you will get the backtrace including the call made.

-Rob

--
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

[Ted Gould (ted)]

On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 00:20 +0000, Robert Collins wrote:
> I don't think this is easily feasible - the error is raised by python,
> not by bzr. We could do backtrace introspect foo, but that is really
> quite complex to do robustly and reliably with C extensions and all.

I guess I was thinking something like:

try:
   chmod(file)
catch e:
   e.message += "chmod"

Could that work?

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 18:03 +0000, Ted Gould wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 00:20 +0000, Robert Collins wrote:
> > I don't think this is easily feasible - the error is raised by python,
> > not by bzr. We could do backtrace introspect foo, but that is really
> > quite complex to do robustly and reliably with C extensions and all.
>
> I guess I was thinking something like:
>
> try:
> chmod(file)
> catch e:
> e.message += "chmod"
>
> Could that work?

Well, there are a huge number of such sites to modify, and it will make
clean code rather fugly IMO. Better to patch python.

-Rob

--
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.