Skip to content

cockpit-desktop: clarify error when cockpit-bridge is missing - #22803

Closed
aravindhaj17 wants to merge 1 commit into
cockpit-project:mainfrom
aravindhaj17:clarify-bridge-error
Closed

cockpit-desktop: clarify error when cockpit-bridge is missing#22803
aravindhaj17 wants to merge 1 commit into
cockpit-project:mainfrom
aravindhaj17:clarify-bridge-error

Conversation

@aravindhaj17

Copy link
Copy Markdown

What this PR does

Improves the user-facing error message when cockpit-bridge is not found and adds a brief explanation before attempting to start it.

Why

Previously, the root cause was obscured by unrelated terminal output, which made the failure confusing for users.

Testing

Manually verified the messaging when cockpit-bridge is not installed.

Fixes #20766

@martinpitt martinpitt left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks! This needs to be refined a bit, but surely improves the error message.

Comment thread src/ws/cockpit-desktop.in
# start the bridge; this needs to run in the normal user session/namespace
echo "cockpit-desktop: attempting to start cockpit-bridge locally"

if ! command -v cockpit-bridge >/dev/null 2>&1; then

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This needs to be refined to take the optional second "ssh host" CLI argument into account. I.e. it does not make sense to check for cockpit-bridge locally if $2 contains a ssh host.

@jelly

jelly commented Apr 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Proposed an alternative approach here #23144

@jelly jelly closed this Apr 16, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

make cockpit-desktop error message of bridge not found easier to understand

4 participants