find: Implement exec[dir] + #515
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #515 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.47% 87.50% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 31 31
Lines 6770 6914 +144
Branches 305 326 +21
==========================================
+ Hits 5922 6050 +128
- Misses 628 629 +1
- Partials 220 235 +15 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
src/find/matchers/exec.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| // Reset command status. | ||
| *command = self.new_command(); | ||
| command.try_arg(&path_to_file).unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's possible for this to fail for particularly long file paths. We should report an error rather than panic if that happens
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've added a check on that, thanks.
| if let Err(e) = build_top_level_matcher(&["-exec", "+"], &mut config) { | ||
| assert!(e.to_string().contains("missing argument")); | ||
| } else { | ||
| panic!("parsing argument list with exec and no executable should fail"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you use expect_err() for these?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They are just copied from other tests. And use expect_err will cause dyn find::matchers::Matcher doesn't implement Debug. I don't know how to handle it.
hanbings
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm, will there be any other updates here? : )
|
I don't have more updates if no further issue. |
This PR implements
-exec ... {} +with argmax as a new dependency.Solve #6 , #366