#340: DIRECTORY applied to symbolic links with non-existent targets returns errors --------------------------+----------------------- Reporter: mevenson | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: 1.3.0 Component: interpreter | Version: 1.3.0-dev Resolution: | Keywords: --------------------------+----------------------- Comment (by alan ruttenberg): [discussion from mailing list] From: Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa@cs.nyu.edu> Date: Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 5:05 AM To: abcl-dev <armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net> Hello, as anything that deals with PATHNAMES is inherently a “hic sunt leones” area. My suggestion - as a user! - regarding this TRUENAME issue is that the top confer is to minimize differences with other implementations. Another suggestion would be to see what Farè’s UIOP library is doing in this case. Cheers — MA -- Marco Antoniotti ---------- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:40 PM To: Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa@cs.nyu.edu> Cc: abcl-dev <armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net> Well, SBCL returns the name of the directory entries(without resolving symbolic links) when I use the directory function and truename returns the directory entry unmolested for the problematic entry. I guess sbcl precedes Faré ;-) Note this is despite the fact that sbcl also has a :resolve-symlinks argument to directory, and that it also defaults to true. I think this should be the behavior for ABCL, with the resolving and probing separated altogether from the truename and directory code. I'm downloading ccl to see what it does. -Alan ---------- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:53 PM To: Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa@cs.nyu.edu> Cc: abcl-dev <armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net> Clozure CCL's behavior is more complicated and confusing. Without keywords directory doesn't return the file *at all* while truename fails saying that the file does not exist. However it also has keywords :include-emacs-lock-files and :follow-links With :include-emacs-lock-files t and :follow-links nil it directory returns the problematic entry's name, and with :follow-links t (or not supplied) it gives an error. I would be satisfied with this behavior as well, though I think SBCL's is cleaner. The problem with ABCL's function is that there is no way to avoid getting an error when applying directory to it. -Alan ---------- From: Mark Evenson <evenson@panix.com> Date: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:44 AM To: abcl-dev <armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net> Cc: Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa@cs.nyu.edu>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> On Jan 7, 2014, at 19:40, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, SBCL returns the name of the directory entries(without resolving symbolic links) when I use the directory function and truename returns the directory entry unmolested for the problematic entry. I guess sbcl precedes Faré ;-)

Note this is despite the fact that sbcl also has a :resolve-symlinks argument to directory, and that it also defaults to true.

I think this should be the behavior for ABCL, with the resolving and probing separated altogether from the truename and directory code.

It is [quite clear from the Hyperspec][DIRECTORY] that DIRECTORY "returns a fresh list of pathnames corresponding to the truenames of those files.” And it is [quite clear as well][TRUENAME] that calling TRUENAME on a non- existent file should signal a file error. What is not clear is whether the “fresh list of pathnames” returned by DIRECTORY is the actual result of calling TRUENAME on the filespec. I guess it doesn’t have to be, which is what SBCL and CCL seem to be implementing. I guess I am leaning towards adding a further arg to DIRECTORY “:RESOLVE- ENTRIES-VIA-TRUENAME” (terrible name, should be shorter) which defaults to NIL, which would preserve the current behavior. Otherwise, we would treat symbolic links in the same manner as SBCL: populate the PATHNAME with what would be used in making a TRUENAME call, but don’t actually make the call. Adding an application specific (“ignore Emacs backup files”) mechanism like CCL to the Common Lisp part of things smells wrong: one should at least implement the rudiments of an extensible API that would allow other filespecs to be added to the list of directory entries to be treated in this manner. But I do think that the ANSI spec intends that once one has the results of the DIRECTORY call, and the relevant parts of the filesystem are not changed in the meantime, applications expect that the results remain valid TRUENAMEs (i.e. they can be accessed). In practice, I guess this is why everyone has their own toolsets for dealing with filesystems. Comments? [DIRECTORY]: http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_dir.htm [TRUENAME]: http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_tn.htm -- "A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before but there is nothing to compare to it now." ---------- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:51 AM To: Mark Evenson <evenson@panix.com> Cc: abcl-dev <armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net>, Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa@cs.nyu.edu> There are, I would offer, several arguments suggesting that the current behavior should not be the default. 1) Exceptions: Generally, listing the contents of a directory is not considered an exception unless the directory structure is corrupted. In some cases (e.g. unix "rm") you can't even do anything to the target of the link. So ABCL signals an exception when most would not expect it. Consider the case where the link points to a file on a device that may or not be mounted. If the device is taken offline, nothing in the directory changes, and yet the behavior does. It seems that this situation is more properly handled by an exception when opening the file. The doc for truename says, about conditions: "An error of type file-error is signaled if an appropriate file cannot be located within the file system for the given file spec or if the file system cannot perform the requested operation.". Whether or not the symbolic link is a file or not. Certainly for some cases it is, for example when handled by archiving or certain version control systems, or in the cases I list in (4). In the case of "rm", the answer is yes, it is a file, implicit from the documentation: "The rm utility attempts to remove the non-directory type files specified on the command line. [...] The rm utility removes symbolic links, not the files referenced by the links. In ABCL, (directory "/") -> (#P"/"). This means that a) ABCL is inconsistent in that it sometimes returns truenames for things that can not be "opened" or b) ABCL admits that there can be truenames for entities other than files, which makes it's treatment of symbolic links inconsistent. 2) Pragmatism: With the current default, the only possible programmatic repair in the common case that you don't care about these entries - for example if you are looking for a file whose name matches a pattern not expressible using the directory wild card expressivity - is to use an implementation-specific keyword. CCL's implementation also has this property, which I also consider to be a fail. In practical terms this means that the unsuspecting programmer must wrap all calls to directory with a catch and have the handler respond in an implementation-specific way. It is much more common to protect accesses to a file than accesses to a directory. 3) Truth in advertising: The exception happens independent of the value of the :resolve-symlinks keyword. If the function is told not to resolve symlinks, one would expect it doesn't resolve symlinks. Yet it does, since that's the only way that it could figure out that the "file does not exist". 4) File system operations other than opening: There are legitimate operations on unresolvable links. For example, such files can be removed, renamed, and there are retrievable dates and other metadata retrievable about them. One would not expect directory to balk in the case that you are retrieving file names for one of these purposes. My conclusion: - If resolve-symlinks is false, the behavior should be either that of SBCL's (return the name) or CCL's (don't return the name) depending on which answer the implementation takes towards the question "is a symbolic link a file?". - If resolve-symlinks is true then signal an error. - The default should be :resolve-symlinks nil, because cognate directory operations in every operation's default case that I'm aware of is to not consider this case an exception. Regarding CCL's application-specific reference to emacs, I simply think the argument is named poorly. In fact directory will return paths to any links that do not resolve, not only emacs lock files. A better argname would be :include-unresolvable-links. This email was tool long :) -Alan ---------- From: Alessio Stalla <alessiostalla@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 AM To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> Cc: Mark Evenson <evenson@panix.com>, abcl-dev <armedbear-devel@common- lisp.net>, Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa@cs.nyu.edu> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: There are, I would offer, several arguments suggesting that the current behavior should not be the default. [...] My conclusion: - If resolve-symlinks is false, the behavior should be either that of SBCL's (return the name) or CCL's (don't return the name) depending on which answer the implementation takes towards the question "is a symbolic link a file?". - If resolve-symlinks is true then signal an error. - The default should be :resolve-symlinks nil, because cognate directory operations in every operation's default case that I'm aware of is to not consider this case an exception. I agree wholeheartedly. CL's filesystem handling is already bad as it is without implementation-specific warts. -- Ticket URL: <http://abcl.org/trac/ticket/340#comment:1> armedbear <http://abcl.org> armedbear

#340: DIRECTORY applied to symbolic links with non-existent targets returns errors --------------------------+----------------------- Reporter: mevenson | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: 1.3.0 Component: interpreter | Version: 1.3.0-dev Resolution: | Keywords: --------------------------+----------------------- Comment (by mevenson): Apache Commons uses the mismatch between canonical version of the directory of the java.io.File object and the object itself to determine whether the file possibly refers to a symbolic link. Reportedly this doesn't work on Windows. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/813710/java-1-6-determine-symbolic- links -- Ticket URL: <http://abcl.org/trac/ticket/340#comment:3> armedbear <http://abcl.org> armedbear