At 10:53 AM 3/21/2005, Robert Mathews wrote:
I'll try to get to it this weekend. But there are other patches back
up,
plus the issues mentioned below.
Thank you very much.
done first, before the fixes are applied, so that the regression test changes can be tested.
How does that work? Does somebody need to update the list of boost tests, like the ones in operations_test.cpp? I don't see any testing of UNC
I'm still pounding away at documentation for the I18N revisions. Hopefully that will be finished tomorrow, and I can get back to the issues raised recently. paths
in there.
Would this do it?
// Test for bug 1164057, shares always detected as existing even when they don't if ( platform == "Windows" ) { // Make sure that a share that doesn't exist, doesn't exist fs::path aInvalidShare( "//share/foo", fs::native ); BOOST_TEST(!fs::exists(aInvalidShare));
// Note: This assumes that the administrative share on this computer is available. fs::path aValidShare( string("//")+getenv("COMPUTERNAME")+string("/c$"), fs::native ); BOOST_TEST(fs::exists(aValidShare)); }
Yes, Martin Bonner's posting makes the point that perhaps a computer name only w/o a share isn't a valid path. I tend to agree with him - however, that raised the question that if a computer name w/o a share isn't a valid path, then why is the path::iterator returning the computer name w/o a share in the first place?
One thought would be that when iterating over the parts of a UNC path, it might be nice if "//computername/share" was returned as one part (the 1st part). Another thought would be if there was some way for the part to indicate that this part was a computername, not a path part ... maybe
That's the idea. It might be better to write a separate test program, however, so that incorrect assumptions about what shares are available don't cause the whole operations test to fail. there
has already been a long discussion of this?
No, there hasn't been a lot of discussion about UNC issues. That's why they aren't handled as well as local paths. Thus cases such as you and Martin brought up are very helpful. Please don't take slow response on my part as a lack of interest. I'd very much like to improved UNC handling and testing, so thank you for bringing up the issue. --Beman