EIM-334: prerequisities check enhancement #342

alirana01 · 2026-01-15T10:57:29Z

Description

This PR enhances the prerequisites checking system to handle scenarios where the system cannot execute shell commands or encounters errors during verification. Previously, if the shell failed or a system error occurred, users were stuck with no way to proceed.

Changes Summary

Backend (Rust)

Added verify_shell_execution() to test basic shell execution on each platform:
- Linux: sh -c "echo test"
- macOS: zsh -c "echo test"
- Windows: cmd /c echo test
Added PrerequisitesCheckResult struct with:
- missing: Vec<&'static str> — list of missing prerequisites
- can_verify: bool — whether the system can run verification commands
- shell_failed: bool — whether shell execution specifically failed
Added check_prerequisites_with_result() to return detailed verification status
Updated CLI to show an appropriate error message mentioning the --skip-prerequisites-check flag
Updated GUI backend to return detailed JSON with can_verify and shell_failed fields

Frontend (Vue)

Updated SimpleSetup.vue (Easy Installation) to show a skip button on verification failure
Updated PrerequisitesCheck.vue (Expert Installation) to stop auto-navigation and show a skip option
Fixed wizard auto-navigation bug that was skipping when shell failed (empty missing array)

Localization

Added GUI-specific locale keys in app.yml for shell verification failures
Consolidated duplicate prerequisite messages into common.prerequisites in en.json and cn.json

Checklist

Before submitting a Pull Request, please ensure the following:

🚨 This PR does not introduce breaking changes.
All CI checks (GH Actions) pass.
Documentation is updated as needed.
Tests are updated or added as necessary.
Code is well-commented, especially in complex areas.
Git history is clean — commits are squashed to the minimum necessary.

gemini-code-assist · 2026-01-15T10:57:54Z

Summary of Changes

Hello @alirana01, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request significantly improves the robustness and user experience of the prerequisite checking system. Previously, users could get stuck if the system failed to execute shell commands or encountered errors during verification. The changes introduce a more detailed prerequisite check result, including an explicit check for basic shell functionality. This allows the installer to gracefully handle verification failures by offering users the option to skip the check and proceed, thereby enhancing system resilience and preventing installation roadblocks.

Highlights

Enhanced Prerequisite Checking Logic: Introduced a new PrerequisitesCheckResult struct in the backend (Rust) to provide detailed status, including whether the system can run verification commands (can_verify) and if basic shell execution failed (shell_failed). This allows for more nuanced handling of prerequisite checks.
Robust Shell Execution Verification: Added a verify_shell_execution() function that tests basic shell command execution across Linux, macOS, and Windows. This ensures the system can reliably run commands necessary for prerequisite checks, preventing installer hangs.
User-Facing Skip Option for Failed Verification: The frontend (Vue) now detects when prerequisite verification itself fails (e.g., due to shell issues) and presents users with a 'Skip Prerequisites Check' button in both 'Simple Setup' and 'Expert Installation' flows. This prevents users from being stuck in unrecoverable states.
Improved Error Messaging and Localization: New locale keys have been added for specific GUI messages related to shell verification failures and general verification errors. Common prerequisite hint messages have been consolidated for better maintainability.
Fixed Wizard Auto-Navigation Bug: Corrected an issue in the 'Expert Installation' wizard where auto-navigation would incorrectly proceed even if prerequisite verification failed but no specific missing items were reported, ensuring proper flow control.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	`/gemini review`	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	`/gemini summary`	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	`/gemini help`	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

alirana01

Initial self review

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This pull request significantly enhances the prerequisite checking system by adding robust handling for shell execution failures and other verification errors. The backend changes in Rust introduce a more detailed PrerequisitesCheckResult struct, which is a great improvement for communicating verification status to the frontend. The Vue components have been updated effectively to use this new information, providing a better user experience by allowing users to skip the check when verification fails. The consolidation of localization strings is also a welcome improvement for maintainability. My review focuses on further improving code clarity and robustness by addressing some typos, a misleading return value, a hardcoded fallback, and some code duplication.

src-tauri/src/gui/commands/prequisites.rs

src/components/SimpleSetup.vue

src/components/wizard_steps/PrerequisitiesCheck.vue

alirana01 · 2026-01-15T12:02:18Z

src-tauri/src/gui/commands/prequisites.rs


 /// Checks which prerequisites are missing
 #[tauri::command]
 pub fn check_prequisites(app_handle: AppHandle) -> Vec<String> {


@Hahihula
The check_prequisites() function returns an empty Vec for both "all prerequisites satisfied" and "verification failed" cases.
In installation.rs (lines 873, 887, 898, 1543), this means if shell verification fails, the code proceeds as if prerequisites are satisfied (a warning is shown to the user, but installation continues).
Is this silent pass-through acceptable for the installation flow? Or should we update these callers to use check_prerequisites_detailed() which distinguishes between "success" and "can't verify"?

In case it's really working as you described than it's definitely bug, but this task was filed because when the check failed there was no way to proceed so i am not sure it's actually working the way you are describing. I will take a closer look.
But you are completely right. we should not silent pass.

Hahihula

Ok, as you correctly found we had a bug there probably. We should not alow silent pass when the prerequisities check fail.
but the same way we are offering the user in the gui wizard in. the case of failed check to continue, we should do the same i nthe cli interactive wizard.

Hahihula · 2026-01-15T11:07:03Z

src-tauri/src/lib/system_dependencies.rs

 /// * `Ok(Vec<&'static str>)` - If the function completes successfully, returns a vector of unsatisfied tools.
 /// * `Err(String)` - If an error occurs, returns an error message.
-pub fn check_prerequisites() -> Result<Vec<&'static str>, String> {
+// pub fn check_prerequisites() -> Result<Vec<&'static str>, String> {


what is this commented out code?

Hahihula · 2026-01-16T09:26:37Z

src-tauri/src/gui/commands/prequisites.rs


 /// Checks which prerequisites are missing
 #[tauri::command]
 pub fn check_prequisites(app_handle: AppHandle) -> Vec<String> {


In case it's really working as you described than it's definitely bug, but this task was filed because when the check failed there was no way to proceed so i am not sure it's actually working the way you are describing. I will take a closer look.
But you are completely right. we should not silent pass.

Hahihula · 2026-01-16T11:36:29Z

src-tauri/src/lib/system_dependencies.rs

+/// system prerequisites, including both the list of missing tools and whether
+/// the system was able to run verification commands at all.
+#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
+pub struct PrerequisitesCheckResult {


aren't the can_verify and shell_failed mutualy exclusive ? maybe we do not need the shell_failed because that is what can_verify=false means ?

shell_failed distinguishes why can_verify is false:

can_verify=false, shell_failed=true → Shell commands don't work on this system

can_verify=false, shell_failed=false → Shell works, but another error occurred (e.g., unsupported package manager)

This allows the UI to show appropriate messages:

Shell failed → "Basic shell execution failed"

Other error → "A system error occurred: {specific error}"

Without shell_failed, we couldn't differentiate between these two failure modes.
So basically to relay proper information to user

but than your logic is flawed ... you return
verify_shell_execution -> false for both unsupported OS as well as for failed shell execution
in current implementation they are mutualy exclusive

Yep fixed now need your expert review again please. Callers are already handling this properly

…n instead

alirana01 · 2026-01-19T13:44:07Z

@Hahihula can you please review again some more changes around critical parts just need to be sure if I understand this correctly.

Hahihula · 2026-01-20T10:31:18Z

src/components/SimpleSetup.vue

+        console.log('Default installation path:', installPath.value)
+
+        const versions = await invoke('get_idf_versions', { includeUnstable: false })
+        selectedVersion.value = versions?.[0]?.name || 'v5.5.1'


i know it was here already, but as you are refactoring this function toss this hardcoded default out. if we could not get_idf_versions, it should fail.

Hahihula

under current logic the can_verify and shell_failed are mutually exclusive, either your logic is flawed or their are redundant.
Also could you please finally stick to the branch naming convention in this repository in next PRs ?

…rror message

Hahihula

Thanks!

alirana01 added 2 commits January 15, 2026 11:44

added the gui and cli parts to use the updated prereq checks

b4e17a6

reverted back

da3d937

alirana01 self-assigned this Jan 15, 2026

alirana01 changed the title ~~EIM-334: prerequisities check enhancement~~ [WIP]EIM-334: prerequisities check enhancement Jan 15, 2026

alirana01 commented Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

alirana01 requested a review from Hahihula January 15, 2026 10:59

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

alirana01 changed the title ~~[WIP]EIM-334: prerequisities check enhancement~~ EIM-334: prerequisities check enhancement Jan 15, 2026

alirana01 requested a review from Fabricio-ESP January 15, 2026 11:01

alirana01 added 2 commits January 15, 2026 12:45

refactor to save duplicated code.

1a8540e

switched to warning instead of error for consistency

8b36619

alirana01 commented Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

Hahihula requested changes Jan 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

alirana01 added 2 commits January 16, 2026 13:35

removing commented code

4f00442

updated to remove dependency on tauri command and use library functio…

0f52d29

…n instead

alirana01 requested a review from Hahihula January 19, 2026 13:44

Hahihula reviewed Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Hahihula requested changes Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

alirana01 added 2 commits January 20, 2026 11:59

removing hardcoded value for the version check and returning proper e…

99dc199

…rror message

fixing broken logic

6de506e

alirana01 requested a review from Hahihula January 20, 2026 11:19

updated and fixed the logic for the verify shell function

464a12f

Hahihula approved these changes Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

EIM-334: prerequisities check enhancement #342

Are you sure you want to change the base?

EIM-334: prerequisities check enhancement #342

Uh oh!

Conversation

alirana01 commented Jan 15, 2026

Description

Changes Summary

Backend (Rust)

Frontend (Vue)

Localization

Checklist

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot commented Jan 15, 2026

Summary of Changes

Highlights

Footnotes

Uh oh!

alirana01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Hahihula left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Hahihula Jan 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

alirana01 commented Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Hahihula left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Hahihula left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Hahihula Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Hahihula left a comment •

edited

Loading