Home • About Us • A-Z Index • Search * Contact Us • Register • Login • Press • Shop

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 0592 Details

Help Show help | Quick Search | Submit a Test Suite Support Request | Click here to view your privileges

This page provides all information on Problem Report 0592.

Report 0592 Actions

    Problem Report Number 0592
    Submitter's Classification Test Suite problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Problem Resolution ID REJ.X.0196
    Raised 1970-01-01 08:00
    Updated 2003-03-13 08:00
    Published null
    Product Standard Commands and Utilities V2 (UNIX 95)
    Certification Program The Open Brand certification program
    Test Suite VSC version 4.1.5
    Test Identification XOPEN.cmd/uux 1027
    Problem Summary PG4C.00080 This IR claims that simple filenames are being used improperly.
    Problem Text
    This IR claims that simple filenames are being used improperly.

    The test purpose (#1027) is poorly written. It claims to test the
    assertion:

    "When the filename is a simple filename, then it is taken
    with reference to the current working directory."

    However, the argument "hello" in this case does not represent
    a filename at all. If the test case were changed to execute a
    command which would interpret "hello" as a filename, then it
    would work fine, that is:

    uux "!cat hello >!test.out"

    It is important to distinguish between arguments that represent
    filenames and those that do not. XPG4 does not appear to specify
    how the latter are to be handled, it only specifies how filenames
    should be handled. Uux has no way of knowing how an arbitrary command
    is going to interpret it's arguments. For this reason, there is a
    historical mechanism (unspecified by XPG4) to identify non-filename
    arguments by wrapping them in parentheses:
    uux "!echo (hello) >!test.out"
    This command will give the results expected by the vsc test purpose,
    but is not a proper test of the assertion.

    One additional note, for this test, the current directory along with
    the word hello is echo'ed. CAE Specification on page 767 under
    description states how a filename is to be specified for the uux
    command. The last part states: ".... or a simple filename (which
    is prefixed by uux with the current directory)". This is exactly
    what the implementation under test is doing.
    Test Output
    400|592 1027 1 06:45:43|IC Start
    200|592 1 06:45:44|TP Start
    520|592 1 1840709663 1 1|Assertion #1027 (A): simple filename is in current wor
    520|592 1 1840709663 1 2| <LC> king directory
    520|592 1 1840709663 1 11|Command failed: 'cmp uux_27_out /tmp/VSC4.1.5/tet_tmp
    520|592 1 1840709663 1 12| <LC> _dir/35997a/uux/uux_27_eso > /dev/null 2>&1'
    220|592 1 1 06:47:13|FAIL
    410|592 1027 1 06:47:14|IC End

    Review Information

    Review Type TSMA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Recommendation No Resolution Given
    Review Response
    We recommend this request be refused.

    The submitter states

    It is important to distinguish between arguments that represent
    filenames and those that do not.

    We believe that there is a specified mechanism for distinguishing
    arguments that represent filenames.

    The OPERANDS section states,

    command-string
    ... the command and any filenames can be
    prefixed by ``system-name!''. A null system
    name is interpreted as the local system.

    The system-name! prefix provides the means of identifying
    filenames when it is necessary to do so. If the system-name!
    prefix is used then the argument is a filename, otherwise the
    aregument is of unknown type.

    The submitter goes on to state

    XPG4 does not appear to specify how the latter (arguments of
    unknown type) are to be handled, it only specifies how filenames
    should be handled. Uux has no way of knowing how an arbitrary
    command is going to interpret it's arguments.


    We believe the spec does not talk about handling arguments of
    unknown type as no processing is intended for them. They are passed
    to the command unchanged.

    We agree that this leaves uux with no way of knowing how the command
    will handle its arguments. That does not matter. Uux need not
    know this. Its only function is to process identified filenames.

    The historical mechanism for wrapping filenames in parenthesis
    is mentioned in the uux spec. Its use is not necessary in this
    instance.

    Using this logic we can examine the uux command the test uses

    uux "!echo hello >!uux_27_out"

    The echo is not interpreted, it is the command (the first word),
    The hello is not interpreted, it is an argument of unknown type.

    It is not really necessary to the command that the output
    filename be interpreted, the result should be the same way.
    But the interpretation is needed to test the assertion so we
    force processing via the "!" prefix. It is the simple filename
    that the assertion refers to.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Review Conclusion
    This request is refused.

    Problem Reporting System Options:

     

    Back   

Contact the Certification Authority