Repository navigation
Conversation
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
rustbot
added
the
T-libs
|
r? @ChrisDenton rustbot has assigned @ChrisDenton. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
|
@bors try jobs=android |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
enable fchmodat_works test under android try-job: *android*
| check!(file.set_permissions(p)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[cfg(not(target_os = "android"))] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pretty sure I wrote this test earlier and templated this off the chmod_works test (if you look at lines 1699-1719 above). It does look redundant with the set_get_permissions_nofollows test on how it creates a regular file and calls set_permissions_nofollow on that. However, the only difference I can say between the two is that this one is intentionally trying to use set_permissions_nofollow on a file that doesn't exist.
Looking at it now, it's more like set_get_permissions_nofollows (which I based off set_get_unix_permissions() earlier and somehow it evolved into being a cross-platform test instead of unix only) is a duplicate of this test since this test encapsulates that test's behavior and more. The ErrorKind::Unsupported error on a regular file should only be reachable by hermit, vxworks and vexos, but I don't think CI tests for those, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you want to, you can remove the set_get_permissions_nofollows test to reduce bloat.
This branch has not been deployed
4 participants
I missed this one in #163548. I don't know why we have what seems like duplicate tests for
fs::set_permissions_nofollow, but more test coverage seems better so 🤷 .@asder8215 -- all these tests got added in #158168 apparently; why the duplication?