Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix: fs::remove_dir_all: treat internal ENOENT as success #127623
fix: fs::remove_dir_all: treat internal ENOENT as success #127623
Changes from all commits
736f773
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
With this function, you can simply wrap the relevant function calls in
ignore_enoent
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this seems clever, but it doesn't work for a few reasons:
continue
on ENOENT, not ignore itunlinkat
call in the future, they will probably also need to wrap it, and if they don't, it will introduce a sneaky regression.using try blocks doesn't have either of these issues.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As far as I can tell, this actually works with the function. It'd treat removal failed with
ENOENT
the same as successful deletion and continue into the next loop.I actually feel the opposite way, it's better if we annotate all the places where we treat
ENOENT
as not an error rather than treating all possibleENOENT
in this function as non-errors.E.g. the recursive call does not need to ignore
ENOENT
as far as I can tell, but using try blocks will silence any errors that come from that.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
actually, maybe we should ignore the error in the recursive call, but not ignore any ENOENT errors outside of the for loop, as top-level ENOENT errors should be returned (currently this happens in
remove_dir_all_modern
).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.