[Libguestfs] [PATCH 3/3] docs: don't perform lookup on absolute paths

[Tomáš Golembiovský]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 01:46:03PM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> On Monday, 27 January 2020 12:37:38 CET Tomáš Golembiovský wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:17:42PM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > > On Monday, 27 January 2020 10:39:34 CET Tomáš Golembiovský wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tomáš Golembiovský <tgolembi at redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  podwrapper.pl.in | 2 ++
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/podwrapper.pl.in b/podwrapper.pl.in
> > > > index f12a173f..1e4aa149 100755
> > > > --- a/podwrapper.pl.in
> > > > +++ b/podwrapper.pl.in
> > > > @@ -689,6 +689,8 @@ sub find_file
> > > >      my $use_path = shift;
> > > >      local $_;
> > > >  
> > > > +    return $input if File::Spec->file_name_is_absolute($input) and -f $input;
> > > 
> > > Do you really need to use file_name_is_absolute? -f seems to work fine
> > > also with absolute paths. In case the path is relative, -f will be fine
> > > too, as...
> > 
> > It's all about skipping the code below. The '.' will turn your nice
> > absolute path '/foo/bar' into relative path './foo/bar' and the lookup
> > will fail.
> 
> Oh sorry, most probably I did not explain properly what I meant.
> 
> Since -f works on both absolute and relative paths, my suggestion is
> to change your line into a simpler:
> 
>   return $input if $input;
> 
> and most probably removing '.' from the search loop below.

Now I see what you mean. Yeah, that makes sense too.

    Tomas

> 
> -- 
> Pino Toscano



> _______________________________________________
> Libguestfs mailing list
> Libguestfs at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libguestfs


-- 
Tomáš Golembiovský <tgolembi at redhat.com>