Skip to content

Add missing error check on tidyLoadConfig #10636

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

nielsdos
Copy link
Member

@nielsdos nielsdos commented Feb 20, 2023

Parse errors were not reported for the default config, they were only reported when explicitly another config was loaded. This means that users may not be aware of errors in their configuration and therefore the behaviour of Tidy might not be what they intended. This patch fixes that issue by using a common function. In fact, the check for -1 might be enough for the current implementation of Tidy, but the Tidy docs say that any value other than 0 indicates an error. So future errors might not be caught when just using an error code of -1. Therefore, this also changes the error code checks of == -1 to < 0 and == 1 to > 0.

Found using an experimental static analysis tool I'm developing.

Parse errors were not reported for the default config, they were only
reported when explicitly another config was loaded.
This means that users may not be aware of errors in their configuration
and therefore the behaviour of Tidy might not be what they intended.
This patch fixes that issue by using a common function. In fact, the
check for -1 might be enough for the current implementation of Tidy, but
the Tidy docs say that any value other than 0 indicates an error.
So future errors might not be caught when just using an error code of -1.
Therefore, this also changes the error code checks of == -1 to < 0 and
== 1 to > 0.
Copy link
Member

@Girgias Girgias left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Waiting for CI to pass before merging. But LGTM otherwise. :)

@Girgias Girgias closed this in f592f75 Feb 21, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants