GNU bug report logs - #55065
13.0.11; compilation reports errors, but TeX-next-error says no errors

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 55065 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 55065 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Miguel V. S. Frasson" <mvsfrasson <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-auctex <at> gnu.org
Subject: 13.0.11; compilation reports errors, but TeX-next-error says no errors
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:40:10 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi.

I am editing a simple text with actually no errors. Compilation reports
errors (what is annoying) but TeX-next-error says "No more errors."

MWE:

\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
Bla :123:
blablabla-blablabla blablabla-blablabla
blablabla-blablabla blablabla-blablabla.
\end{document}

Investigating, in tex-buf.el one reads:

  (if (re-search-forward "^\\(!\\|.*:[0-9]+:\\) " nil t)
      (progn
        (message "%s errors in `%s'. Use %s to display." name (buffer-name)
                 (substitute-command-keys
                  "\\<TeX-mode-map>\\[TeX-next-error]"))

so error message can be triggered as easily as if input has a string like
":0: " that can go to log if that line has a bad break, like in MWE.

Emacs  : GNU Emacs 26.3 (build 2, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.24.13)
 of 2019-12-24
Package: 13.0.11

current state:
==============
(setq
 AUCTeX-date "2021-04-28"
 window-system 'x
 LaTeX-version "2e"
 TeX-style-path '("~/.emacs.d/auctex"
 "/home/sme/.emacs.d/elpa/auctex-13.0.11/style"
 "/home/sme/.emacs.d/auctex/auto"
 "/home/sme/.emacs.d/auctex/style" "auto" "style")
 TeX-auto-save t
 TeX-parse-self t
 TeX-master t
 TeX-command-list '(("TeX" "%(PDF)%(tex) %`%S%(PDFout)%(mode)%' %t"
    TeX-run-TeX nil
    (plain-tex-mode texinfo-mode ams-tex-mode) :help
    "Run plain TeX")
   ("LaTeX" "%`%l%(mode)%' %t" TeX-run-TeX nil
    (latex-mode doctex-mode) :help "Run LaTeX")
   ("ConTeXt" "texexec --once --texutil %(execopts)%t"
    TeX-run-TeX nil (context-mode) :help "Run ConTeXt once")
   ("ConTeXt Full" "texexec %(execopts)%t" TeX-run-TeX nil
    (context-mode) :help "Run ConTeXt until completion")
   ("BibTeX" "bibtex %s" TeX-run-BibTeX nil t :help
    "Run BibTeX")
   ("View" "%V" TeX-run-discard-or-function t t :help
    "Run Viewer")
   ("Print" "%p" TeX-run-command t t :help "Print the file")
   ("Queue" "%q" TeX-run-background nil t :help
    "View the printer queue" :visible TeX-queue-command)
   ("File" "%(o?)dvips %d -o %f " TeX-run-command t t :help
    "Generate PostScript file")
   ("Index" "texindy -C utf8 %s.idx" TeX-run-command nil t
    :help "Create index file")
   ("Check" "lacheck %s" TeX-run-compile nil (latex-mode)
    :help "Check LaTeX file for correctness")
   ("Spell" "(TeX-ispell-document \"\")" TeX-run-function nil
    t :help "Spell-check the document")
   ("Clean" "TeX-clean" TeX-run-function nil t :help
    "Delete generated intermediate files")
   ("Clean All" "(TeX-clean t)" TeX-run-function nil t :help
    "Delete generated intermediate and output files")
   ("Other" "" TeX-run-command t t :help
    "Run an arbitrary command")
   )
 )


-- 
Miguel Vinicius Santini Frasson
mvsfrasson <at> gmail.com

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #8 received at 55065 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
To: "Miguel V. S. Frasson" <mvsfrasson <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 55065 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#55065: 13.0.11;
 compilation reports errors, but TeX-next-error says no errors
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 22:24:13 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Miguel and all,

>>>>> "Miguel V. S. Frasson" <mvsfrasson <at> gmail.com> writes:
> I am editing a simple text with actually no errors. Compilation reports
> errors (what is annoying) but TeX-next-error says "No more errors."

> MWE:

> \documentclass{article}
> \begin{document}
> Bla :123:
> blablabla-blablabla blablabla-blablabla
> blablabla-blablabla blablabla-blablabla.
> \end{document}

> Investigating, in tex-buf.el one reads:

>   (if (re-search-forward "^\\(!\\|.*:[0-9]+:\\) " nil t)
>       (progn
>         (message "%s errors in `%s'. Use %s to display." name (buffer-name)
>                  (substitute-command-keys
>                   "\\<TeX-mode-map>\\[TeX-next-error]"))

> so error message can be triggered as easily as if input has a string like
> ":0: " that can go to log if that line has a bad break, like in MWE.

Thanks for the report with simple MWE. I can confirm the behavior.

To developers:
(1) I think the attached patch circumvents this issue. However,
    `TeX-parse-error' contains similar loose treatments for other
    messages from (La)TeX. Should we add refinements to the rest of the
    function as well? 
(2) (This item isn't related to my patch; it has persisted with AUCTeX
     for fairly long period.)
    Looking at the regexp used in `TeX-parse-error', the parts "Hook
    to change line numbers" and "Hook to change file name" are not
    actually matched because preceding alternative parts "New file" and
    "End of file" match instead. Thus the accompanying codes at later
    part of the function never run, IIUC:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
         ;; Hook to change line numbers
         ((match-beginning 5)
          (setq TeX-error-offset
                (list (string-to-number (TeX-match-buffer 5))))
          t)

         ;; Hook to change file name
         ((match-beginning 6)
	 [...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Is that OK? Or am I missing something?

Regards,
Ikumi Keita
#StandWithUkraine #StopWarInUkraine

[0001-Be-more-robust-against-false-positive.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Message #11 received at 55065 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
Cc: 55065 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, "Miguel V. S. Frasson" <mvsfrasson <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#55065: 13.0.11;
 compilation reports errors, but TeX-next-error says no errors
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:19:14 +0900

>>>>> Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp> writes:
>     Looking at the regexp used in `TeX-parse-error', the parts "Hook
>     to change line numbers" and "Hook to change file name" are not
>     actually matched because preceding alternative parts "New file" and
>     "End of file" match instead.

Sorry, this was my misunderstanding. Ignore it.

Regards,
Ikumi Keita
#StandWithUkraine #StopWarInUkraine

Message #14 received at 55065 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
To: 55065 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: "Miguel V. S. Frasson" <mvsfrasson <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#55065: 13.0.11;
 compilation reports errors, but TeX-next-error says no errors
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:13:35 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

>>>>> Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp> writes:
> (1) I think the attached patch circumvents this issue.

My previous attempt was insufficient as it doesn't continue search for
errors after false match. Reworked patch is attached below.

>     However,
>     `TeX-parse-error' contains similar loose treatments for other
>     messages from (La)TeX. Should we add refinements to the rest of the
>     function as well?

If nobody minds this concern, I'll commit my proposal.

Regards,
Ikumi Keita
#StandWithUkraine #StopWarInUkraine

[0001-Be-more-robust-against-false-positive.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Message #19 received at 55065 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp>
To: "Miguel V. S. Frasson" <mvsfrasson <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 55065 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#55065: 13.0.11;
 compilation reports errors, but TeX-next-error says no errors
Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 14:32:42 +0900

>>>>> Ikumi Keita <ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp> writes:
>> (1) I think the attached patch circumvents this issue.

> My previous attempt was insufficient as it doesn't continue search for
> errors after false match. Reworked patch is attached below.

>> However,
>> `TeX-parse-error' contains similar loose treatments for other
>> messages from (La)TeX. Should we add refinements to the rest of the
>> function as well?

> If nobody minds this concern, I'll commit my proposal.

Committed, so I close this bug.

Regards,
Ikumi Keita
#StandWithUkraine #StopWarInUkraine

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.