Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: Unreadable directories aren't included in glob expansion
- X-seq: zsh-workers 45504
- From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Unreadable directories aren't included in glob expansion
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:55:53 +0000
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <CGME20200109154313eucas1p13b2e5465f21d059ea08537012e140236@eucas1p1.samsung.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <228AACAF-6A76-417F-929A-0CC48A9AB1D0@kba.biglobe.ne.jp> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DFEA2DC-139B-435D-A272-18208085736B@kba.biglobe.ne.jp> <email@example.com>
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:26 +0000:
> Jun T wrote on Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:37 +0900:
> > > 2020/02/27 22:00, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jun. T wrote on Thu, 27 Feb 2020 00:51 +0900:
> > >>
> > >> I think just skipping this test on Cygwin is enough for now.
> > >
> > > I assume some day we'll fix the C code to make the test pass on other
> > > platforms. When that happens, should the test then continue be skipped
> > > on Cygwin? If not, I suggest adding a comment reminding to remove the
> > > skip when the test starts to pass on other platforms.
> > Sorry, I was not following this thread; what kind of "fix" do you
> > have in mind?
> I do not have a specific fix in mind. I just assumed that at some
> indefinite point in the future we will change the C code in a way that
> makes the test produce the expected output, and at the same time remove
> the 'f' flag from the test.
Actually, it turns out that the test in question has already been fixed
on the 5.9 branch. (I completely forgot about that before, sorry. I only
ran into it now because I was trying to merge 5.9 into master.)
The fix is in commit edc04bd94656a152e17f06188bcef172d62a3ad4.
Could you check if D02 passes on the 5.9 branch on Cygwin? If it does,
I'll merge master into 5.9, resolve the conflict on D02 by removing the
skip and leaving the test exit code and flags as "0:" (= pass), and then
merge 5.9 into master.
> > Anyway, the only thing I know is
> > both access("d000/.", F_OK) and stat("d000/.", st)
> > succeed on Cygwin. If the revised C code depends on the failure of
> > either of these calls then the test need be skipped on Cygwin,
> > I think.
> Why would we need to skip the test on Cygwin after we fix it on other
> platforms? The only reason the test fails on Cygwin is because it's
> marked 'f' (= expected to fail) and _does_ produce the expected
> output. Once we fix the C code so the test produces the expected
> output, I think we'll be able to remove the 'f' flag _and_ the skip,
> and then the test will be passing on all platforms, including Cygwin.
> What am I missing?
Messages sorted by: