On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FILE_OR_FOLDER just doesn’t seem to be supported in the system completely.
> Does anyone remember when it came about and why?
>
Good question. I hope someone will pipe in.
Gary
>
>
> On March 7, 2018 at 17:41:56, Otto Fowler (ottobackwa...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> FileType normalisePath
>
> In UriParser is an issue as well, trying to derive a FOLDER or FILE by the
> name doesn’t work if the system is FILE_OR_FOLDER….
>
>
> On March 6, 2018 at 15:17:50, Otto Fowler (ottobackwa...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> protected void addBaseTests() throws Exception {
> addTests(ProviderCacheStrategyTests.class);
> addTests(UriTests.class);
> addTests(NamingTests.class);
> // --> file or folder rework addTests(ContentTests.class);
> // --> file or folder rework addTests(ProviderReadTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderWriteTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderWriteAppendTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderRandomReadTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderRandomReadWriteTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderRandomSetLengthTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderRenameTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderDeleteTests.class);
> addTests(LastModifiedTests.class);
> addTests(UrlTests.class);
> // -> file or folder rework addTests(UrlStructureTests.class);
> }
>
>
> These are the tests that I have run. They are the standard set minus the
> classloader.
> All the tests pass, other than the commented out tests, because these tests
> explicitly check for File or Folder,
> that you cannot write or read data from a folder etc.
>
> I’m playing around with a Zookeeper FS. I haven’t posted it to my github
> yet, but I will if you want to look. So, with zookeeper you have nodes and
> paths etc.
> each node may have children and may have data. So FILE_OR_FOLDER is the
> correct designation.
>
>
> RE : Resource and URL -> Only the MIME provider returns FILE_OR_FOLDER, the
> others either delegate to the canonical type, or are FILE or IMAGINARY. So
> I don’t
> think they count.
> An the MIME provider has NO tests…. so yeah.
>
>
> On March 6, 2018 at 14:25:46, Bernd Eckenfels (e...@zusammenkunft.net)
> wrote:
>
> Those tests should be behind a capability for sure, but I thought they are
> already (as the resource and URL fikesystem already passes the tests).
>
> What filesystem do you have in mind and what are examples of failing
> testcases? I think I had fixed a few for WebDav back in the days.
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
> Von: Otto Fowler
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. März 2018 13:41
> An: Commons Developers List
> Betreff: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests
>
> If you have a filesystem, where everything could be a FILE_OR_FOLDER type (
> or VIRTUAL until attached ), then it seems like you need to replace some of
> the testcases in the
> provider suites, since they assume or check for FILE and FOLDER explicitly.
>
> I guess my question is, are the tests as they are wrong and need to be
> refactored or do we actually need alternate tests for content etc where we
> check?
>
