On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 1:53 AM Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 19. 6. 25 00:17, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 18. 6. 25 23:20, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > > Disclaimer: I haven't looked at this codebase in a reeeeeally long time. > But this code in cmdline.c reads differently than my now-naive eyes would > expect: > > /* If neither --non-interactive nor --force-interactive was passed, > * be interactive if stdin is a terminal. > * If --force-interactive was passed, always be interactive. */ > if (!force_interactive && !*non_interactive) > *non_interactive = svn_cmdline__stdin_is_a_terminal(); > > This looks to have been introduced relatively recently, in r1925937 ( > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/?view=revision&revision=1925937). I guess > I would expect it to read: > > if (!force_interactive && !*non_interactive) > *non_interactive = !svn_cmdline__stdin_is_a_terminal(); > > That is, be non-interactive if stdin is NOT a terminal. But, yeah, see > the disclaimer above. :-) > > -- Mike > > > > As the saying goes: dammit, Mike, not you again! :D > > You're perfectly right, and our tests never once tickled this case. Adding > that one bang fixes the problem for me. Writing a test for this case now – > it's already failing, I just have to adjust expected_stderr. > > And yeah, looking at that diff now, it's kind of obvious. 🙄 > > Thanks! > > -- Brane > > > > Fixed in r1926563. Not even a one-liner, more of a one-banger. :) > Thank you! I should focus a lot more on such details. Sorry 😅 -- Timofei Zhakov
