Re: Allowing antlibs to contribute diagnostics & version info

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Jeffrey E. Care <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To test this you pretty much need to start a new Ant instance & I > wasn't sure the best way to do that in the automated tests (or if > it's even possible there). The easiest way may be inside an AntUnit test. > Are there any peop

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a nutshell, it seems we should keep track of the > canonical paths scanned and refuse to recurse them for > a path of infinite depth (i.e. one containing "**"). The situation of the testcase is (you'll need a monospaced font 8-)

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it not costly (as in very costly) to get the canonical path ? That's what I've been told but I've never measured it. Currently DirectoryScanner avoids looking at the canonical path unless followSymlinks is false. The problem with

Re: Allowing antlibs to contribute diagnostics & version info

Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/02/2008 12:14:15 AM: > OTOH at least the -diagnostics part may need more logic than can be > (conveniently) placed into an antlib descriptor but could be more > easily expressed in Java so really using the service API may benefit > us here. FYI, I've

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

Is it not costly (as in very costly) to get the canonical path ? I would be for the lowest tech possible here. Peter On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> as Issue 45499 shows

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > as Issue 45499 shows DirectoryScanner can run into infinite loops by > symbolic links that point to parent directories of the scanned > directory. Instead of trying to track traversed directories using a stack or set, what

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

In a nutshell, it seems we should keep track of the canonical paths scanned and refuse to recurse them for a path of infinite depth (i.e. one containing "**"). It could be possible to match a path containing a recursive symlink by > 1 path of different lengths. So the infinite depth case is the o

DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

Hi all, as Issue 45499 shows DirectoryScanner can run into infinite loops by symbolic links that point to parent directories of the scanned directory. I've committed an AntUnit test file that shows some interactions of DirectoryScanner and symlink to