Re: [O] [PATCH] Add catch-up all LaTeX errors

[Nicolas Goaziou]

"Francesco Pizzolante" <address@hidden> writes:

>> IOW, it cannot tell the difference between a successful export and an
>> export failure with an already existing PDFFILE.
>
> This is not true as this code checks for the `errors' variable in all
> cases. With an already existing PDFFILE, you will end up with this
> message: 'Process completed with errors: ...'.

If "file.pdf" exists before the export, you will always get "Process
completed", even if the current export was a total failure (e.g., no
file produced).

IIUC, you're really looking after a way to know if a pdf file was really
produced. Reporting "Process completed with errors : [unknown error]"
will certainly not help on this you because some errors are not fatal
(i.e., they are skipped and the pdf file is still produced).

> From my point of view, the issue comes from the fact that the `errors'
> variable is not correctly filled in with errors from the LaTeX log file.

[...]

> While the wikibooks reference
> (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Errors_and_Warnings) tells that to
> be sure to catch *all* errors, we have to check for any line beginning
> with '!'.

I agree, but this is not sufficient, see below.

> Then, in the case where the `errors' variable would effectively contain
> any error from the log file, the code you mention above would work in
> any case.
>
> That's why I started with this patch (*and it works*):

It depends on what you define as "working". We're talking about two
different things. I think a better error system should report:

  1. a PDF file not produced (or updated),
  2. a PDF file produced with errors,
  3. a PDF file produced with warnings (maybe),
  4. a PDF file produced cleanly.

4 already works. Your patch improves 2, but 1 is still wrong.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou