[cocci] Feature request: print status messages to the terminal

[cocci] Feature request: print status messages to the terminal

[Mansour Moufid]

Hello,

This is just a small thing, but at the moment spatch prints such
messages to stderr:

    $ spatch x.cocci --dir linux-5.14.5 2>errors.txt
    $ cat errors.txt
    HANDLING: linux-5.14.5/arch/alpha/boot/bootp.c
         (ONCE) already tagged but only removed, so safe
    diff =
    HANDLING: linux-5.14.5/arch/alpha/boot/bootpz.c
    diff =
    HANDLING: linux-5.14.5/arch/alpha/boot/main.c
    diff =
    ...

It would be nice if these lines were printed directly to the terminal.
That way, they would be visible, but not in stdout or stderr.

I use --very-quiet, but I do want to see these messages, just not in stderr.

Unfortunately I don't know OCaml, but here is how to use ctermid to
get a stream to the terminal:

    #include <assert.h>
    #include <stddef.h>
    #include <stdio.h> /* ctermid */
    #include <string.h>
    int main(void)
    {
        char *tty = ctermid(NULL);
        assert(tty != NULL && strlen(tty) > 0);
        FILE *f = fopen(tty, "w");
        if (f == NULL)
            perror(NULL);
        fprintf(f, "ctermid() == %s\n", tty);
        return 0;
    }

All the best.

Re: [cocci] Feature request: print status messages to the terminal

[Julia Lawall]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2021, Mansour Moufid wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This is just a small thing, but at the moment spatch prints such
> messages to stderr:
>
>     $ spatch x.cocci --dir linux-5.14.5 2>errors.txt
>     $ cat errors.txt
>     HANDLING: linux-5.14.5/arch/alpha/boot/bootp.c
>          (ONCE) already tagged but only removed, so safe
>     diff =
>     HANDLING: linux-5.14.5/arch/alpha/boot/bootpz.c
>     diff =
>     HANDLING: linux-5.14.5/arch/alpha/boot/main.c
>     diff =
>     ...
>
> It would be nice if these lines were printed directly to the terminal.
> That way, they would be visible, but not in stdout or stderr.
>
> I use --very-quiet, but I do want to see these messages, just not in stderr.

I don't want to see these messages.  I at most just want to record them
for future reference.  So I think we would need a new option to offer this
behavior.  What would you like it to be called?

julia

>
> Unfortunately I don't know OCaml, but here is how to use ctermid to
> get a stream to the terminal:
>
>     #include <assert.h>
>     #include <stddef.h>
>     #include <stdio.h> /* ctermid */
>     #include <string.h>
>     int main(void)
>     {
>         char *tty = ctermid(NULL);
>         assert(tty != NULL && strlen(tty) > 0);
>         FILE *f = fopen(tty, "w");
>         if (f == NULL)
>             perror(NULL);
>         fprintf(f, "ctermid() == %s\n", tty);
>         return 0;
>     }
>
> All the best.
>

Re: [cocci] Feature request: print status messages to the terminal

[Mansour Moufid]

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 1:24 AM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> I don't want to see these messages.  I at most just want to record them
> for future reference.  So I think we would need a new option to offer this
> behavior.  What would you like it to be called?

I personally like --print-status or --no-status. I've seen other
command line utilities do something like --verbose=1, --verbose=2,
etc. I would be happy with either.

Re: [cocci] Feature request: print status messages to the terminal

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Mansour Moufid wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 1:24 AM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
> >
> > I don't want to see these messages.  I at most just want to record them
> > for future reference.  So I think we would need a new option to offer this
> > behavior.  What would you like it to be called?
>
> I personally like --print-status or --no-status. I've seen other
> command line utilities do something like --verbose=1, --verbose=2,
> etc. I would be happy with either.

--verbose-status ?

julia

Re: [cocci] Feature request: print status messages to the terminal

[Mansour Moufid]

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 11:46 AM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> --verbose-status ?

Sounds good to me. :)

Re: [cocci] Feature request: print status messages to the terminal

[Nicolas Palix]

Hi,

On 27/10/2021 18:18, Mansour Moufid wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 11:46 AM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
>>
>> --verbose-status ?
> 
> Sounds good to me. :)
> 

For the record.

ctermid is in the extunix library.

module U = ExtUnix.Specific

let _ =
         let tty = U.ctermid () in
         Printf.printf "%s\n"  tty;
         let tty_ch = open_out tty in
         output_string tty_ch "Hello\n";
         close_out tty_ch

$ dune exec ./ctermid.exe
Hello
/dev/tty

$ dune exec ./ctermid.exe > /dev/null
Hello


-- 
Nicolas Palix

Re: [cocci] Feature request: print status messages to the terminal

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Nicolas Palix wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 27/10/2021 18:18, Mansour Moufid wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 11:46 AM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > --verbose-status ?
> >
> > Sounds good to me. :)
> >
>
> For the record.
>
> ctermid is in the extunix library.
>
> module U = ExtUnix.Specific
>
> let _ =
>         let tty = U.ctermid () in
>         Printf.printf "%s\n"  tty;
>         let tty_ch = open_out tty in
>         output_string tty_ch "Hello\n";
>         close_out tty_ch
>
> $ dune exec ./ctermid.exe
> Hello
> /dev/tty
>
> $ dune exec ./ctermid.exe > /dev/null
> Hello

Thanks!

julia

Re: [cocci] Print selected status messages to an other output target?

[Markus Elfring]

> I use --very-quiet, but I do want to see these messages,

Why do you see a need to handle a message selection in a special way?


> just not in stderr.

Would you like to become able to specify any other output channel
(according to your data processing requirements)?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [cocci] Feature request: print status messages to the terminal

[Julia Lawall]

Hello,

I'm still trying to understand what is the real goal for this issue, to
see if it could be handled in some other way.  Do you want status messages
to be separated from real errors?  Perhaps it would be sufficient to have
an option that would put the status messages on standard out?  Then you
could give the -o argument to put the generated patch into a file.

julia

Re: [cocci] Feature request: print status messages to the terminal

[Mansour Moufid]

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 5:39 AM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm still trying to understand what is the real goal for this issue, to
> see if it could be handled in some other way.  Do you want status messages
> to be separated from real errors?  Perhaps it would be sufficient to have
> an option that would put the status messages on standard out?  Then you
> could give the -o argument to put the generated patch into a file.

Sorry I didn't explain it well. I am using spatch in a script and
logging stderr to a temporary file to catch any errors. I just didn't
want the status messages to appear there because there are so many.
But I've worked around this by ignoring those lines. I don't think
anything on stdout should change. The current behaviour is fine, I
don't mind it that much.

Re: [cocci] Feature request: print status messages to the terminal

[Julia Lawall]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2021, Mansour Moufid wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 5:39 AM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm still trying to understand what is the real goal for this issue, to
> > see if it could be handled in some other way.  Do you want status messages
> > to be separated from real errors?  Perhaps it would be sufficient to have
> > an option that would put the status messages on standard out?  Then you
> > could give the -o argument to put the generated patch into a file.
>
> Sorry I didn't explain it well. I am using spatch in a script and
> logging stderr to a temporary file to catch any errors. I just didn't
> want the status messages to appear there because there are so many.
> But I've worked around this by ignoring those lines. I don't think
> anything on stdout should change. The current behaviour is fine, I
> don't mind it that much.

OK, I think I will leave things as is, to avoid adding another option and
more dependencies.

Thanks for the suggestion.

julia

Re: [cocci] Print selected status messages to an other output target?

[Markus Elfring]

>> Sorry I didn't explain it well. I am using spatch in a script and
>> logging stderr to a temporary file to catch any errors. I just didn't
>> want the status messages to appear there because there are so many.
>> But I've worked around this by ignoring those lines. I don't think
>> anything on stdout should change. The current behaviour is fine, I
>> don't mind it that much.
>
> OK, I think I will leave things as is, to avoid adding another option and
> more dependencies.

Will any related data processing requirements trigger the collateral evolution
to filter log output any more by their severity (or other categories)?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/

Regards,
Markus

Re: [cocci] Feature request: print status messages to the terminal

[Julia Lawall]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2021, Nicolas Palix wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 30/10/2021 11:39, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm still trying to understand what is the real goal for this issue, to
> > see if it could be handled in some other way.  Do you want status messages
> > to be separated from real errors?  Perhaps it would be sufficient to have
> > an option that would put the status messages on standard out?  Then you
> > could give the -o argument to put the generated patch into a file.
> >
>
> I think it could be a --log-output option.
> That way, it could be set from the command line to either a file or /dev/tty.
>
> I was also thinking of a --(show-)progress option otherwise.
>
> I think it's better to keep the default output for report/patch printing
> generated by the SmPL file.

OK, I'm not really concerned about the name of the option.  But I'm not
enthusiastic at all about adding yet another dependency, ie the library
you indicated.  The idea of an output that always appears on the screen
and is not capturable also feels fairly useless to me...

julia