[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IO-291?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gary D. Gregory updated IO-291:
-------------------------------
Attachment: io-291.diff
Attaching my version of the patch with discussed changes. What is not clear to
me is if this is the best choice:
{code:java}
public void testUnrealizedContainment() throws IOException {
final File dir = new File("DOESNOTEXIST");
final File file = new File(dir, "DOESNOTEXIST2");
assertFalse(dir.exists());
assertFalse(file.exists());
assertFalse(FileUtils.contains(dir, file));
}
{code}
as opposed to:
{code:java}
assertFalse(FileUtils.contains(dir, file));
{code}
The relationship in b/w parent and child is valid but unrealized on disk.
Shouldn't contain value the relationship as valid even if unrealized? I am
inclined to say yes.
Thoughts?
> Add new function FileUtils.isContained
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: IO-291
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IO-291
> Project: Commons IO
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Utilities
> Affects Versions: 2.1
> Reporter: Pier-Luc Caron St-Pierre
> Assignee: Gary D. Gregory
> Labels: patch
> Fix For: 2.1
>
> Attachments: FileUtils.isContained.patch, io-291.diff
>
>
> I added a function that determines whether the specified leaf is contains by
> the specified composite.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
