Author silvan
Recipients jendrik, malte, silvan
Date 2017-10-24.16:56:13
Ok, I understand that using exit code 0 for translator and search if they
succeed makes sense.

> (Perhaps not
> in the tracker, as this takes so much time. I think it's been at least an hour
> for me for this message and the previous one.)
Please don't feel urged to answer quickly here, I though it was better to post
the discussion here than leading it by email. If you think that the discussion
gets too long, you can always suggest to move it to the next Fast Downward
meeting or the next print.

> For example, if translator and search both use unique non-success exit codes, a
> first idea could be that whenever one of the components returns non-zero, no
> further components will not be run and the exit codes becomes the exit code of
> the driver. (Is there any situation where after a non-zero translator result, it
> makes sense to continue with planning? Is there any situation where after a
> non-zero planner result, it makes sense to continue with validation?)
The exit codes are unique except for SIGXCPU, which is the same for both
translator and search. I still think that not running the next component after a
non-zero exit code is a good thing to do.

I implemented this change and adapted the driver to exit with the error code of
the last component that ran or with 0 if all components succeeded. This
hopefully matches the previous behavior where the exit code of the search was
returned as long as validate succeeded (which it does if on plan is given, if I
recall correctly). Additionally, the driver now prints the exit codes of the
components after running them, so we can parse the outcome of them with lab.

Here is a pull request:
Date User Action Args
2017-10-24 16:56:14silvansetmessageid: <>
2017-10-24 16:56:14silvansetrecipients: + silvan, malte, jendrik
2017-10-24 16:56:14silvanlinkissue739 messages
2017-10-24 16:56:14silvancreate