[Toybox] [PATCH] find.test: fix test expectation for BSD libcs.

[Rob Landley]

On 8/20/19 4:44 PM, enh wrote:
>> Seriously,that's what LOCALE=C _should_ emit. :P
> 
> agreed. (we used to joke that en_NJ [for New Jersey] should do this.)
> 
> but forcing the locale to en_US.utf8 is good enough for our testing
> purposes, with the exception of [rare] cases like this where the
> strings differ slightly.

Assuming en_US.utf8 is installed on the machine, but yeah we can spec that as a
prerequisite for running the test suite.

>>> though it's definitely unfortunate that there are a few BSD/GNU
>>> wording differences.
>>
>> And probably musl in there too (which is increasingly important in the
>> docker/container world; alpine's their default "small" distro)...
> 
> i'd assume musl just copied glibc's strings?

https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/errno/__strerror.h

>>> (my specific worry in this case is that i assume that eventually
>>> DIRTREE_STATLESS will return errno in struct dirtree because other
>>> potential users -- like ls(1) -- want more control, at which point
>>> find(1) will likely be in charge of reporting its own errors based on
>>> dirtree errno values rather than necessarily the thread-local errno.
>>
>> I'd make that its own flag, and let's burn that bridge when we come to it.
>>
>> But tell me more about this use case? Why does ls need more control of its error
>> messages? (I believe you, I just want to understand the goal you're trying to
>> achieve here.)
> 
> i haven't actually tried to write this yet, so i reserve the right to
> be wrong, but ... i think that ls cares about the difference between
> stuff like EPERM/EACCES (where it should just do the whole ??? thing
> we've seen the GNU one do) and anything else, where it should just
> report the error.

Oh, I reproduced a directory full of ??? output: chmod 444 dirname:

$ ls dirtest -l
ls: cannot access 'dirtest/three': Permission denied
ls: cannot access 'dirtest/one': Permission denied
ls: cannot access 'dirtest/two': Permission denied
total 0
-????????? ? ? ? ?            ? one
-????????? ? ? ? ?            ? three
-????????? ? ? ? ?            ? two
$ ./toybox ls -l dirtest
ls: dirtest/three: Permission denied
ls: dirtest/one: Permission denied
ls: dirtest/two: Permission denied
total 0

I'm not sure we're worse?

$ ./toybox ls dirtest
ls: dirtest/three: Permission denied
ls: dirtest/one: Permission denied
ls: dirtest/two: Permission denied
$ ls dirtest
ls: cannot access 'dirtest/three': Permission denied
ls: cannot access 'dirtest/one': Permission denied
ls: cannot access 'dirtest/two': Permission denied
one  three  two

But that _is_ worse. Hmmm.

Possibly it should produce the -????????? output without the "permission denied"
messages for -l, and just produce the filenames for ls. (And then append an ?
for ls -F which the other one doesn't do but... :)

Wouldn't it be nice if the posix committee still functioned? I hope its Jorg
Schilling problem clears up someday. In the meantime we soldier on ignoring them...

>> I've had error_msg() so multiple toybox commands produce a consistent error
>> format, and it intentionally defers to libc for what the error message should be
>> in the local language. But an environment variable so it can spit out the macro
>> names for testing would be REALLY NICE. I very vaguely remember reading
>> something about the ability to make it do that that years ago, but have no idea
>> where or which "it" this was referring to...
> 
> definitely haven't seen anything like that myself.

It was back in college, so quite possibly SunOS had a way to do that.

Rob