bad error message when you give a readonly dircap as target to "tahoe cp" #2081
Labels
No Label
0.2.0
0.3.0
0.4.0
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.7.0
0.8.0
0.9.0
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.10.0
1.10.1
1.10.2
1.10a2
1.11.0
1.12.0
1.12.1
1.13.0
1.14.0
1.15.0
1.15.1
1.2.0
1.3.0
1.4.1
1.5.0
1.6.0
1.6.1
1.7.0
1.7.1
1.7β
1.8.0
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
1.8β
1.9.0
1.9.0-s3branch
1.9.0a1
1.9.0a2
1.9.0b1
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.9.2a1
LeastAuthority.com automation
blocker
cannot reproduce
cloud-branch
code
code-dirnodes
code-encoding
code-frontend
code-frontend-cli
code-frontend-ftp-sftp
code-frontend-magic-folder
code-frontend-web
code-mutable
code-network
code-nodeadmin
code-peerselection
code-storage
contrib
critical
defect
dev-infrastructure
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
fixed
invalid
major
minor
n/a
normal
operational
packaging
somebody else's problem
supercritical
task
trivial
unknown
was already fixed
website
wontfix
worksforme
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#2081
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
I accidentally wrote
tahoe cp -r . $RODIRCAP
, and instead of a nice error message like "Can't cp to target because it is read-only.", I got this:multikatt proposed a pull request at https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/pull/83. My comment was:
Presumably similar issues apply to other commands besides
tahoe cp
(tahoe mv
at least), but the proposed fix is specific tocp
. Also, the method of detecting that the cap is a read cap will work but I find it a bit dissatisfying; it gives me the feeling of working for the wrong reason.(The method of detecting a read cap used by the pull request was to check whether the "ro_uri" field of the target directory node's JSON description was the same URI as its main cap.)
Note that in the traceback, the issue seems to be that
self.writecap
isNone
here:I would prefer to see a patch that maintained the invariant that
self.writecap
is notNone
whenever the node must be writeable.multikatt's pull request has been closed; I assume they're not working on it currently.