Skip to content
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

Missing config #14

Closed
ILMostro opened this issue Feb 19, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Missing config #14

ILMostro opened this issue Feb 19, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

@ILMostro
Copy link

Missing configuration options to auracle. Specifically, it would be useful to have the "TargetDir" and "Color" options customizable, as in cower. Currently, auracle downloads the package to the directory from whence the tool is called, with no way to specify a target directory.

@falconindy
Copy link
Owner

It's an explicit goal not to have a config file for auracle. I'm going to hold out as long as I can before adding this.

@ILMostro
Copy link
Author

ILMostro commented Oct 16, 2018

I'm not sure if this has always been the case, but I see the -C option available now to auracle. This can be used to achieve the intended behavior until/unless the configuration file for auracle is supported and implemented.

UPDATE:
Actually, as far as I can tell, that commandline option has been added recently by @falconindy. Around the time of their last comment here. The diff is visible at 3500672

@ILMostro
Copy link
Author

So, it seems that there are two issues mentioned in this bug-report. One, the lack of a configuration file for auracle. The other issue, which has been resolved by the aforementioned commit, was the missing option to auracle to change directory before downloading.

@phcerdan
Copy link

Just in case it helps anyone transitioning from cower to auracle:
create a file ~/.functions, and in your .bashrc/zshrc source it with source $HOME/.functions

cower() {
    auracle -C ~/AUR "$@"
}

That will download all the packages in ~/AUR folder when using cower download xxx

falconindy added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 4, 2020
Originally, I wanted to address the following problem:

When a user callback indicates failure, calling CancelAll() means that
we end up (re)invoking a curl socket callback from a socket callback,
leading to a double free (either in sd-event or curl). One possible
backtrace looks like:

    (gdb) bt
->  #0  aur::AurImpl::DispatchSocketCallback (this=0x618000000480, s=<optimized out>, action=4, io=<optimized out>) at ../src/aur/aur.cc:330
    #1  0x00007ffff74fa4e1 in singlesocket () from /usr/lib/libcurl.so.4
    #2  0x00007ffff74fe622 in curl_multi_remove_handle () from /usr/lib/libcurl.so.4
    #3  0x000055555570e833 in aur::AurImpl::FinishRequest (this=<optimized out>, curl=0x623000005500, result=<optimized out>, dispatch_callback=<optimized out>) at ../src/aur/aur.cc:462
    #4  0x0000555555708cc1 in std::__do_visit<std::__detail::__variant::__deduce_visit_result<void>, aur::AurImpl::Cancel(const value_type&)::Visitor, const std::variant<void*, sd_event_source*>&> (__visitor=...) at /usr/include/c++/10.2.0/variant:869
    #5  std::visit<aur::AurImpl::Cancel(const value_type&)::Visitor, const std::variant<void*, sd_event_source*>&> (__visitor=...) at /usr/include/c++/10.2.0/variant:1710
    #6  aur::AurImpl::Cancel (this=0x618000000480, request=...) at ../src/aur/aur.cc:291
    #7  0x00005555557090f6 in aur::AurImpl::CancelAll (this=0x618000000480) at ../subprojects/abseil-cpp-20200225.2/absl/container/internal/raw_hash_set.h:311
    #8  0x000055555570f08d in aur::AurImpl::CheckFinished (this=0x618000000480) at ../src/aur/aur.cc:485
->  #9  0x000055555570f341 in aur::AurImpl::DispatchSocketCallback (this=0x618000000480, s=<optimized out>, action=4, io=<optimized out>) at ../src/aur/aur.cc:332
    #10 0x00007ffff74fb092 in Curl_multi_closed () from /usr/lib/libcurl.so.4
    #11 0x00007ffff74cc631 in Curl_closesocket () from /usr/lib/libcurl.so.4
    #12 0x00007ffff74df551 in Curl_disconnect () from /usr/lib/libcurl.so.4
    #13 0x00007ffff74fc354 in multi_done () from /usr/lib/libcurl.so.4
    #14 0x00007ffff74fcc91 in multi_runsingle () from /usr/lib/libcurl.so.4
    #15 0x00007ffff74fe1d1 in multi_socket () from /usr/lib/libcurl.so.4
    #16 0x00007ffff74fe354 in curl_multi_socket_action () from /usr/lib/libcurl.so.4
    #17 0x000055555570f60d in aur::AurImpl::OnCurlTimer (userdata=0x618000000480) at ../src/aur/aur.cc:401
    #18 0x00007ffff7466b3e in ?? () from /usr/lib/libsystemd.so.0
    #19 0x00007ffff746821e in sd_event_dispatch () from /usr/lib/libsystemd.so.0
    #20 0x00007ffff746a6a9 in sd_event_run () from /usr/lib/libsystemd.so.0
    #21 0x0000555555704bd3 in aur::AurImpl::Wait (this=0x618000000480) at ../src/aur/aur.cc:495
    #22 0x000055555563ee8a in auracle::Auracle::GetOutdatedPackages (this=<optimized out>, args=std::vector of length 0, capacity 0, packages=<optimized out>) at /usr/include/c++/10.2.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:421
    #23 0x0000555555656816 in auracle::Auracle::Outdated (this=<optimized out>, args=..., options=...) at ../src/auracle/auracle.cc:564
    #24 0x0000555555596c7f in main (argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>) at ../subprojects/abseil-cpp-20200225.2/absl/container/internal/raw_hash_set.h:311

We could do that by making CancelAll() merely schedule another event
that performs the actual cancellation at a later point in order to avoid
the recursion. However, our cancellation logic is all sorts of weird and
makes assumptions about how events are dispatched (i.e. there might be
multiple at a time). Let's just get rid of all of this and use the
sd-event mechanism of sd_event_exit instead.

This does, however (as did the original proposed solution), have the
side effect of logging multiple times because we potentially open up to
5 connections to the AUR at once, e.g.

  $ build/auracle --baseurl http://129.168.255.1 outdated
  error: UNKNOWN: Connection timed out after 10000 milliseconds
  error: UNKNOWN: Connection timed out after 10000 milliseconds

I suppose one way to fix this would be to do response merging on the
backend to match the request splitting. That way, the frontend only gets
one response. I think that comes with a lot of weird potential behaviors
though (handling of partial failures, to mention one). Would be nicer if
the AUR didn't have the crap behavior and could take POST requests in
order to extend the arg limit.

Whatever, this is a weird edge case.

Fixes #82.
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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants