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

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 0753 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 0753.

Report 0753 Actions

    Problem Report Number 0753
    Submitter's Classification Specification problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Temporary Interpretation (TIN)
    Problem Resolution ID TIN.X.0044
    Raised 1970-01-01 08:00
    Updated 2003-03-13 08:00
    Published 1995-10-11 08:00
    Product Standard Commands and Utilities V2 (UNIX 95)
    Certification Program The Open Brand certification program
    Test Suite VSC version 4.1.4
    Test Identification POSIX.upe/ex 484
    Specification Commands and Utilities Issue 4 Version 2
    Location in Spec See Problem Text
    Problem Summary TIN4C.00017 This test may fail on all implementations. The behavior of beautify has been labeled undefined in POSIX 1003.2b/D11.
    Problem Text
    This test may fail on all implementations. The behavior of beautify
    has been labeled undefined in POSIX 1003.2b/D11.

    In XCU4, description of ex, "beautify", page 318 is stated:

    "If beautify is set, all non-printable characters, other than
    tab, newline and form-feed characters, will be discarded from
    text read in from files."

    We think that this specification is not clear: What is the meaning of
    "text read in from files"? Does it mean, the entire edited file must
    be processed?

    What is the meaning of discarded: discarded from terminal output or
    really removed from the file?

    The interpretation of the VSC testsuite is:
    If a file is edited by ex and written back immediately,
    all non-printable characters must have been deleted.

    This interpretation is not consistent with historical practice. We
    tested the "beautify" on different machines of 5 manufacturers and got
    the following result:

    On some systems "beautify" is completely ignored. On others it has
    only an impact on the terminal display. But we did not find a single
    system, that deletes in the above mentioned case characters from the
    file, as expected by the testsuite. On *all* systems we tested the
    edited file remains unchanged, if ex/vi is started and only the
    commands "w" and "q" are invoked.

    We think a change of the existing behaviour in this case is not
    acceptable as it might lead to loss of data, possibly unrecognized by
    the user, when the user invokes the same vi/ex commands as in the
    past.
    Test Output
    200|1 1 12:07:12|TP Start
    520|1 1 6469 1 1|Assertion #484 (C): beautify option discards unprintable characters
    520|1 1 6469 1 1|Note: The behavior associated with this assertion is expected
    520|1 1 6469 1 2|to change in a future revision of POSIX.2.
    520|1 1 6469 1 3|diff of "ex_data_1" and "ex_exp_1":
    520|1 1 6469 1 4|2c2
    520|1 1 6469 1 5|< defghi
    520|1 1 6469 1 6|---
    520|1 1 6469 1 7|> defghi
    520|1 1 6469 1 8|Command failed: 'jrnl_file_diff ex_data_1 ex_exp_1'
    220|1 1 1 12:07:34|FAIL

    Review Information

    Review Type TSMA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Recommendation No Resolution Given
    Review Response
    The beautify is no longer required as of POSIX 1003.2b/D11.

    Anticipating acceptance of POSIX 2003.2b/D11 and the eventual alignment
    of the tests with it a temporary interpretation is recommended.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution Temporary Interpretation (TIN)
    Review Conclusion
    A Temporary Interpretation is granted.

    Problem Reporting System Options:

     

    Back   

Contact the Certification Authority