[systemd-devel] Using `systemctl edit` on "invalid" unit names

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 04:21:32PM +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> On Saturday 13 December 2014 at 15:34:01, Ronny Chevalier wrote:	
> > 2014-12-13 11:33 GMT+01:00 Ivan Shapovalov <intelfx100 at gmail.com>:
> > > Hello all,
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > >
> > > it seems that the newly added `systemctl edit` command requires its arguments
> > > to be valid unit names.
> > >
> > > This causes `edit` operation to fail in apparently valid use-cases like
> > >
> > >     systemctl edit getty at .service
> > 
> > This is fixed in git now, thanks!
> > 
> > > or
> > >     systemctl edit autovt at tty1.service
> > >
> > > In second case, the error message is especially cryptic:
> > > "autovt at tty1.service ignored: not found".
> > 
> > It worked before and it still works for me.
> 
> Do you have "getty at tty1.service" explicity enabled? I do have.
> 
> > > Actually I understand what it does mean: systemctl asks the manager to show
> > > unit's FragmentPath -> the manager tries to load the unit -> loading fails with
> > > "File exists" because getty at tty1.service is already instantiated.
> > 
> > I don't see why it should fail for this reason ?
> > 
> > >
> > > (BTW, it's a separate question: is this failure valid or is it a bug?)
> > >
> > 
> > systemctl edit getty at .service, should have worked before so yes this was a bug.
> 
> Now both `edit getty@` and `edit getty at tty1` work, but I'd expect the latter
> to honor the template parameter; i. e. create a drop-in for getty at tty1.service...
> Is this possible?
I made various unifications to the code to make it more maintainable. This
case should be fixed too. Please test it... it's easy to miss the corner cases.

Zbyszek