Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> writes:
>> I am not sure having different semantics for restart and any other
>> action is a good idea though.
>>
>> But what I think would be a good idea is for start, stop, restart to
>> signal an error when additional unexpected arguments are provided.
>
> Failing to change the behavior as suggested, that would still be an
> improvement, yes. But then you'd also be special casing these actions,
> as actions are designed to receive an arbitrary number of arguments and
> cannot forcibly know which ones are really used/necessary in advance?
But the default implementation of `restart' knows it takes no arguments.
So something like the following.
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
diff --git a/modules/shepherd/service.scm b/modules/shepherd/service.scm
index 79d14cf..68c4cca 100644
--- a/modules/shepherd/service.scm
+++ b/modules/shepherd/service.scm
@@ -1115,6 +1115,10 @@ the action."
;; Restarting is done in the obvious way.
((restart)
(lambda (running . args)
+ (unless (null? args)
+ (local-output
+ (l10n "Action `restart' of ~a takes no arguments.")
+ (service-canonical-name service)))
(let ((stopped-services (stop-service service)))
(for-each start-service
(remove transient-service? stopped-services))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
Dunno, just an (untested) idea. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tomas
--
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
