[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Any reason why user action hooks have to be +x?




On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Jhon Honce <jhonce redhat com> wrote:

> As we transitioned more of the cartridge control/layout to the cartridge author's and application developers. We have some well known directories for executables, but the cartridge author can place executables anywhere with that flexibility, there is responsibility. I also think running a script I made chmod a-x seems very nasty.

Isn't chmod o+x sufficient?

> 
> .openshift/action_hooks would require chmod'ing those files on every deploy. To keep paying that price, also seems wrong.

With the new deploy changes its just one more step.  Not sure the perf hit is even measurable - 0.1s during a deploy is a low price to pay to guarantee a users hooks work the first time.

> 
> /jwh
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Clayton Coleman" <ccoleman redhat com>
>> To: "Michael McGrath" <mmcgrath redhat com>
>> Cc: dev lists openshift redhat com
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 11:08:14 AM
>> Subject: Re: Any reason why user action hooks have to be +x?
>> 
>> But why?  What possible problem is there from executing those scripts (the
>> point of this thread is to tease that out).  All I know is that this is a
>> problem for real users, and I don't see any value in us having this
>> restriction.  I guess I'd like to see an argument about WHY this is a bad
>> idea to make these specific scripts executable in this particular case, vs.
>> that in general in the linux world scripts don't make other scripts
>> executable.
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Dan Mace" <dmace redhat com>
>>>> To: "Clayton Coleman" <ccoleman redhat com>
>>>> Cc: dev lists openshift redhat com
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 9:26:35 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Any reason why user action hooks have to be +x?
>>>> 
>>>> I can't remember the arguments against setting the modes on the user's
>>>> behalf
>>>> (or working around the modes another way to make them irrelevant) when
>>>> this
>>>> came up in the past leading to the current design/documentation. I'm in
>>>> favor of finding some way to eliminate the mode requirement. I can't
>>>> think
>>>> of any reason we should support a case where the user commits a
>>>> non-executable script to the hooks directory that they intend to be
>>>> ignored
>>>> simply due to the mode (e.g. if you want to commit but disable the hook,
>>>> rename or move it).
>>> 
>>> As a general rule, we shouldn't be executing scripts that are not set
>>> executable.  I get that this is confusing to new users, but the current
>>> setup is behaving as expected.  I think I would prefer a louder note when a
>>> script is found that is not executable.
>>> 
>>> =====
>>> NOTE:  .openshift/action_hooks/start is not executable and so OpenShift has
>>> skipped it.
>>> Please chmod +x .openshift/action_hooks/start to start it
>>> =====
>>> 
>>> Or something to that effect.  It's just a common convention and one worth
>>> observing.
>>> 
>>>    -Mike
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Dan Mace
>>>> Sr. Software Engineer, Red Hat
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Clayton Coleman" <ccoleman redhat com>
>>>>> To: dev lists openshift redhat com
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:22:12 AM
>>>>> Subject: Any reason why user action hooks have to be +x?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thinking through this... we've had a number of folks who hit the old
>>>>> "oops,
>>>>> my action hooks aren't +x".  Since we are no longer including the hooks
>>>>> in
>>>>> cart templates, it makes it more likely a new user is going to end up
>>>>> wasting their time trying to fix an arbitrary problem (it's burned even
>>>>> experienced developers).  Also, windows developers can't even easily
>>>>> fix
>>>>> modes - requires some git knowledge.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is there a good reason we can't just "/bin/sh" each hook directly or
>>>>> auto
>>>>> +x
>>>>> it?  Or auto +x during deployment?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I vaguely remember discussions, would like to have a discussion on it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> dev mailing list
>>>>> dev lists openshift redhat com
>>>>> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dev mailing list
>>>> dev lists openshift redhat com
>>>> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev mailing list
>> dev lists openshift redhat com
>> http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
>> 


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]