Skip to content
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

Add tests for rm removing symlinks #849

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

freitagbr
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #796

Adds a test for removing a symbolic link to a file, and for failing to remove the contents of a directory through a symbolic link without the -r flag. Improves test coverage from 95.71% to 98.57%.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented May 10, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #849 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #849   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage    95.8%   95.8%           
======================================
  Files          34      34           
  Lines        1262    1262           
======================================
  Hits         1209    1209           
  Misses         53      53

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4733a32...c678839. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@nfischer nfischer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Mostly good. Thanks for taking this up.

test/rm.js Outdated
@@ -57,6 +57,17 @@ test('invalid option', t => {
t.is(result.stderr, 'rm: option not recognized: @');
});

test('remove symbolic link to a dir without -r fails', t => {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This statement is only correct because of the trailing slash:

$ rm link_to_a_dir/ # fails
$ rm link_to_a_dir # succeeds (it removes the link itself, does not affect dir or contents

Please clarify this in the test name, and please include a more verbose comment explaining the significance of the trailing slash.


Also, we have an existing test which handles the case with no trailing slash and no -r (yay), however that test case needs an assertion. Currently, it asserts that the destination dir still exists, but it should instead assert that the contents of that destination dir still exist. The destination always survives an rm. If you can, please fix that test too.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Other ways we might test link-handling:

  • -r, link to a dir, trailing slash (delete contents and the link)
  • -rf, link to a dir, trailing slash (this is already implemented, but I mention it here for completeness)
  • -r, link to a dir, no trailing slash (deletes only the link, not the destination, nor the destination's contents)
  • -rf, link to a dir, no trailing slash (same as above, probably not necessary to copy this out)

Copy link
Contributor Author

@freitagbr freitagbr May 11, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've tested the first one and I think the behavior is a little different (linux 4.4.0, bash 4.3.48):

  • -r, link to a dir, trailing slash: rm: cannot remove 'link/': Not a directory

Can you tell me if you get the same behavior in bash?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I see the same behavior on my machine.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, rm -rf linkToDir/ will exit without error, but will remove neither the link nor the target.

test/rm.js Outdated
@@ -308,3 +319,14 @@ test('remove fifo', t => {
t.is(result.code, 0);
});
});

test('remove symbolic link', t => {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: remove symbolic link to file

Does this actually require skipOnWin? I would be surprised if this is so, because remove symbolic link to a dir passes without that.

Also, it might be nice to move this up closer to that test case.

Renames 'remove symbolic link' test to 'remove symbolic link to a file',
moves the test near a related test, and adds assertions to the test
'remove symbolic link to a dir'.
@nfischer
Copy link
Member

nfischer commented Jul 4, 2018

@freitagbr what state is this in?

@freitagbr
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nfischer I've added tests for rm -r slash/, rm -rf slash/ rm -r noslash, and rm -rf noslash. I also found that the behavior of rm('-r', 'slash/') was incorrect, so I fixed it. PTAL.

@nfischer
Copy link
Member

@freitagbr 2 tests fail on Windows, it looks like we should skip them.

@freitagbr
Copy link
Contributor Author

My bad, I forgot to add skipOnWin to the new tests.

test/rm.js Outdated
t => {
utils.skipOnWin(t, () => {
// the trailing slash signifies that we want to delete the source
// directory and its contents, which can only be done with the -r flag
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

to delete the source directory and its contents

Can you rephrase this as "delete the contents of the source directory, without removing the source directory itself or the link"?

const result = shell.rm(`${t.context.tmp}/rm/link_to_a_dir`);
t.falsy(shell.error());
t.is(result.code, 0);
t.falsy(shell.test('-L', `${t.context.tmp}/rm/link_to_a_dir`));
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is already covered by the next line? Or, does existsSync follow links? If there's a reason, can you add a comment?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

existsSync follows links. This pattern is found in several of the tests here, I will clarify them with comments.

test/rm.js Outdated
// Both the link and original dir should remain, but contents are deleted
t.truthy(fs.existsSync(`${t.context.tmp}/rm/link_to_a_dir`));
t.truthy(fs.existsSync(`${t.context.tmp}/rm/a_dir`));
t.falsy(fs.existsSync(`${t.context.tmp}/rm/a_dir/a_file`));
});
});

test('rm -r, symlink to a dir, no trailing slash', t => {
utils.skipOnWin(t, () => {
const result = shell.rm('-rf', `${t.context.tmp}/rm/link_to_a_dir`);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should be -r not -rf

@@ -45,7 +45,12 @@ function rmdirSyncRecursive(dir, force, fromSymlink) {

// if was directory was referenced through a symbolic link,
// the contents should be removed, but not the directory itself
if (fromSymlink) return;
if (fromSymlink) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As I understand, the issue is that link_to_a_dir refers to something, but link_to_a_dir/ does not (because only directories may be optionally referred to with a trailing slash). But in both cases, link_to_a_dir references a directory, and so I would expect fromSymlink to be in true in both cases.

It sounds like we should rename the variable, or we should add a comment explaining what it actually represents.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants