Re: ls --dired : be more proactive with errors [was: Re: ls/test: verify the output of ls --dired]

[Sylvestre Ledru]

Le 17/09/2023 à 18:05, Pádraig Brady a écrit :
> On 17/09/2023 15:00, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > Le 15/09/2023 à 14:53, Pádraig Brady a écrit :
> > > On 14/09/2023 23:05, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > > > Hello
> > > >
> > > > Currently, GNU coreutils doesn't have any test verifying the actual
> > > > output of ls --dired.
> > > >
> > > > It should generate a list of position (pairs).
> > > >
> > > > //DIRED// 73 82 142 152 ...
> > > >
> > > > The attached patch creates 2 files and one directory and verify 
> > > > that we
> > > > can find their names using the position.
> > >
> > > Well the existing test did verify --dired output offsets,
> > > albeit constant offsets from the non varying output.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Here is a second patch to improve the error management.
> > Currently, "ls --dired" silently fails
> >
> > I implemented the first suggestion in the FIXME.
>
> Yes silently ignoring --dired isn't ideal.
>
> However I'm thinking --dired implying -l,
> and taking precedence if specified last
> would be preferable?
>
> That's done in the attached.
Sounds good. Ship it! :)

Thanks
Sylvestre