Hi I've added this and now the rake task fails as expected. Thank you for the help.
As a side note, the file I modified was the stock rake.bat from the ruby 1.9.1 distribution, so I think this problem applies to most rake users. Honestly I don't fully understand why this solution worked. I had the idea of adding such line when I looked at the rake.bat file previously, but I rejected it as it seemed silly to me. I guess this has something to do with the "exit batch" vs "exit process" thing that Per-Jonny Käck described earlier in the thread. Again, thanks for help. Regards, Michal Dabrowski On Mar 24, 12:41 pm, Ruben Willems <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > it is best to place this in a bat file > and at the end, you place exit %ERRORLEVEL% > > that should help > > with kind regards > Ruben Willems > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Michal Dabrowski < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi > > > I've just noticed that while checking this bat file issue, I made > > mistake and put the task into wrong project. Now after fixing this I > > confirm that ccnet correctly stops (ie. reports failed build) when the > > bat fails (no matter if the batch contains "exit 1" or "exit /b 1"). > > I'm sorry for the confusion. > > > Regardless of this however, rake task (and also exec task that invokes > > the rake.bat) still reports success even if the rake aborts > > prematurely because of compilation error. > > > Also, I have the following prebuild task: > > > <prebuild> > > <exec> > > <executable>c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe</executable> > > <buildArgs>/C "rd /S /Q svn"</buildArgs> > > </exec> > > </prebuild> > > > that always "passes" (ie. even if the command fails, ccnet ignores > > this fact and continues). I'm convinced that this worked like expected > > (ie. failed command = failed build) before the upgrade to 1.4.3. > > > Regards, > > Michal Dabrowski > > > On Mar 24, 11:04 am, Ruben Willems <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I'll check this, ... > > > > with kind regards > > > Ruben Willems > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Michal Dabrowski < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > Thanks for your answer. I've just performed very similar test, but > > > > with bat file instead of an exe. The batch consists solely of the > > > > following line: > > > > > exit /b 1 > > > > > I've configured the cc.net to execute this script as the first > > > > prebuild task with: > > > > > <prebuild> > > > > <exec> > > > > <executable>d:\michald\scr.bat</executable> > > > > </exec> > > > > ................... > > > > </prebuild> > > > > > And the cc.net just ignores this error and proceeds with next tasks. I > > > > can only add that before upgrade to 1.4.3 this worked as expected, ie. > > > > the builds were reported as broken. > > > > > Does anyone experience similar problem? > > > > > Regards, > > > > Michal Dabrowski > > > > > On Mar 19, 3:18 pm, Ruben Willems <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > CCNet's exec task is ok, I just tested it again > > > > > with the following test programs (2 console programs): > > > > > > consok > > > > > code in the main > > > > > Environment.ExitCode == 0; > > > > > > consNotOk > > > > > code in the main > > > > > Environment.ExitCode == 1; > > > > > > and when I placed these in CCNet, the build was OK for consok > > > > > and the build failed for consNotOk > > > > > > So there must be a problem with your config, or the tasks really fail > > > > > > with kind regards > > > > > Ruben Willems > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Michal Dabrowski < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > yesterday I've updated my CCNet to 1.4.3. Today I've noticed that > > > > > > CCNet no longer recognizes failures of exec tasks. This actually > > > > > > applies to <exec> and <rake> tasks. Every build is successful, even > > if > > > > > > the rake aborts or the exec tasks fail. Most of my CCNet > > configuration > > > > > > remained the same as before the upgrade (after upgrade I've only > > > > > > replaced msbuild with rake, but these mentioned exec tasks weren't > > > > > > touched at all). Did anyone else encounter such behavior? > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Michal Dabrowski
