-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
mv: gnu test case part-hardlink
fix
#6632
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
GNU testsuite comparison:
|
Bravo
|
f32325e
to
1da64ed
Compare
GNU testsuite comparison:
|
1 similar comment
GNU testsuite comparison:
|
1da64ed
to
2c7bee1
Compare
GNU testsuite comparison:
|
GNU testsuite comparison:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for tackling these issues! However, combining these three behavioral changes seems like a bad idea, given that each of them have delicate consequences.
It seems that get_dir_content
is the entirely wrong tool to approach mv
, and it causes incorrect behavior.
Finally, it seems you fell into a common trap / bad pattern: Guessing a potential error condition (and not detecting others), then doing an action (and badly handling most error conditions.) This causes unhelpful error messages and unnecessary syscalls.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Whoops, I meant to set the "Request changes" flag. See above for my reasoning. In particular, get_dir_content
must go.
May I suggest to split the tree changes into two or three PRs?
4b9e64e
to
666f8cb
Compare
GNU testsuite comparison:
|
666f8cb
to
119ce64
Compare
GNU testsuite comparison:
|
119ce64
to
e8c9ffc
Compare
GNU testsuite comparison:
|
3754a06
to
338ed28
Compare
@BenWiederhake I cleaned up this PR. Now, it focuses solely on the directory copying part. I'll work on verbose output and error reporting next. For now, could you let me know if this approach looks okay? |
GNU testsuite comparison:
|
GNU testsuite comparison:
|
660eb13
to
59f85e3
Compare
GNU testsuite comparison:
|
d51d906
to
2c92015
Compare
GNU testsuite comparison:
|
@matrixhead I'm unclear on how you wish to proceed. CI is green and ready to merge (assuming I would find no new issues in another review), but the PR is marked as "draft". You also keep force-pushing the branch, and I'm not sure whether you're introducing new changes each time, or just updating to latest master. |
I'm sorry for all the force pushes. I was just trying to fix a bug in one of the tests I wrote, which I couldn't reproduce locally. I think everything is good now, and the PR is ready to merge, except for that one review I couldn't resolve. |
Hi, sorry to be pushy, but it would be great to hear your thoughts on this 🙂 |
oh, please be pushy :) |
Co-authored-by: Sylvestre Ledru <[email protected]>
2c92015
to
d4c9ebf
Compare
GNU testsuite comparison:
|
fix for #6631
behaviours changed
no-target-directory
was specified and the destination ended with a/
This patch resolves that issue.