Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I take the example, > I <-\ > / \ | >/ \ | > B C| > / \ | > / \ | > file.txt A--/ > > and I start with /, with the pattern /**/*.txt,

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

2008/9/10 Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Does that sound OK? >> >> Sounds good to me. > > Of course we'd first check when we hit the name for

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Similarly, maybe an internal flag in DS should be gettable to > >> possibly have client code remove duplicate entries if it wants to??? > > > > Not s

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

Code is in, documentation is not. Please help me find good names and default values 8-) On Mon, 08 Sep 2008, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, combining suggestions by Gilles and Dominique here is what we > could do: > > * add a new sttribute for maxSymlinkRecursionDepth (better n

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Similarly, maybe an internal flag in DS should be gettable to >> possibly have client code remove duplicate entries if it wants to??? > > Not sure what you mean here. Have an new accessor on DirectoryScanner to find out

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does that sound OK? > > Sounds good to me. Of course we'd first check when we hit the name for the (MAX + 1)th time not for the MAXth time since the f

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does that sound OK? Sounds good to me. I'd simply add a warning indicating maxSymlinkTraversal was hit. "User" or verbose level is debatable again. Similarly, maybe an internal flag in DS should be gettable to possibly hav

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I fear that with this aproach, you may have to "rollback" some of > the files already scanned because you will detect a loop after you > have already looped one or more time (including multiple time the > same files). We'd detect the

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

I fear that with this aproach, you may have to "rollback" some of the files already scanned because you will detect a loop after you have already looped one or more time (including multiple time the same files). This "rollback" will be required if you want to provide a "clean" fileset when the pat

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

OK, combining suggestions by Gilles and Dominique here is what we could do: * add a new sttribute for maxSymlinkRecursionDepth (better name appreciated) and make it default to 5 (up for discussion as well). This limits how many times the same symlink can be followed. * Keep a stack of simple

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

2008/9/5 Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 2008/9/5 Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Is it not costly (as in very costly) to get the canonical path ? >>

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/9/5 Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 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 measur

Re: DirectoryScanner and Symlinks

2008/9/5 Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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

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: 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