Re: What about Perl autodie?

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 2:28 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
wrote:

> On 21.02.24 08:26, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 14.02.24 17:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> A gentler way might be to start using some perlcritic policies like
> >> InputOutput::RequireCheckedOpen or the more general
> >> InputOutput::RequireCheckedSyscalls and add explicit error checking at
> >> the sites it points out.
> >
> > Here is a start for that. I added the required stanza to perlcriticrc
> > and started with an explicit list of functions to check:
> >
> > functions = chmod flock open read rename seek symlink system
> >
> > and fixed all the issues it pointed out.
> >
> > I picked those functions because most existing code already checked
> > those, so the omissions are probably unintended, or in some cases also
> > because I thought it would be important for test correctness (e.g., some
> > tests using chmod).
> >
> > I didn't design any beautiful error messages, mostly just used "or die
> > $!", which mostly matches existing code, and also this is
> > developer-level code, so having the system error plus source code
> > reference should be ok.
> >
> > In the second patch, I changed the perlcriticrc stanza to use an
> > exclusion list instead of an explicit inclusion list. That way, you can
> > see what we are currently *not* checking. I'm undecided which way
> > around is better, and exactly what functions we should be checking. (Of
> > course, in principle, all of them, but since this is test and build
> > support code, not production code, there are probably some reasonable
> > compromises to be made.)
>
> After some pondering, I figured the exclude list is better. So here is
> a squashed patch, also with a complete commit message.
>
> Btw., do we check perlcritic in an automated way, like on the buildfarm?

Yes. crake and koel do.

cheers

andrew