I need to refer to the directory created by withTempDir by name in the Actions. I am guessing that the current working directory is changed by withTempDir, and that would likely work in the simple case. However some of the Actions must do their own (Cwd somewhere).
Is there a way inside an Action to get the full path name of the created temp dir?
withTempDir does not change the current directory. In general, changing the current directory (a global resource) in a multithreaded program is a very bad idea. The name of the temp directory is passed to the function given to withTempDir, so you can do:
withTempDir $ \mydir -> do
putNormal $ "Temp directory is " ++ mydir
liftIO $ writeFile (mydir </> "test.txt") "writing out a temp file"
I agree the docs for withTempDir are a bit lacking so have raised a bug to improve them.
Related
I'm trying to use Lua's os.tmpname() on Windows (which uses tmpnam() under the hood), and I'm a bit puzzled by the filenames it is returning.
> print(os.tmpname())
\s3e8.
If I feed it directly to Lua like io.open(os.tmpname(), "w"), it will attempt to create the file in the root directory of the current drive. This seems pretty inappropriate, since we often don't have the permission to do that.
But according to this thread:
https://mingw-users.narkive.com/L7VR1gxX/temporary-file-woes
This is apparently supposed to be a path relative to the current directory. They mentioned this snippet from a Microsoft documentation:
Note than when a file name is prepended with a back slash and no path
information, such as \fname21, this indicates that the name is valid
for the current working directory.
But I can no longer find the documentation they mentioned in the thread.
I googled around, trying to find the latest documentation and found this:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/reference/tempnam-wtempnam-tmpnam-wtmpnam?view=msvc-160
This is the generation rules mentioned in the documentation above:
_tempnam will generate a unique file name for a directory chosen by the following rules:
If the TMP environment variable is defined and set to a valid
directory name, unique file names will be generated for the directory
specified by TMP.
If the TMP environment variable is not defined or if it is set to the
name of a directory that does not exist, _tempnam will use the dir
parameter as the path for which it will generate unique names.
If the TMP environment variable is not defined or if it is set to the
name of a directory that does not exist, and if dir is either NULL or
set to the name of a directory that does not exist, _tempnam will use
the current working directory to generate unique names. Currently, if
both TMP and dir specify names of directories that do not exist, the
_tempnam function call will fail.
I do have the TMP environment variable defined, but Lua always generates the kind of paths I mentioned at the top.
So really, I have two questions:
Is this actually supposed to be a relative path?
If so why does it always generate a relative path, instead of using the standard TMP variables?
I'm testing this with Lua 5.2 from LuaBinaries and the Lua statically built into shinchiro's mpv builds.
According to this thread on lua-users.org you can try passing null.
well i solved it using tmpname(NULL,NULL)... it considers the
temporary directory of the system.
when i use tmpnam() on windows on a non-writable root, the filename
generated (\something) is not writable...
i guess it's an implementation bug
Also note the Lua 5.2 Reference Manual
When possible, you may prefer to use io.tmpfile, which automatically removes the file when the program ends.
So I have an assignment for my finals homework. It wants me to make a directory tree with some commands, similar to CMD. For example it will give me "make " and I will add directories to the tree. I got all the commands, syntax checking etc. down but I can't think how can I create the tree.
I thought about making a general tree for it, but there's a problem. When I add new folders, I need to check if it's already there and print a message if it is. I don't know a lot about tree structure but from what I know, to check them, I need to do firstChild, secondChild... until there is none which seems not the best way to do it.
I need ideas on this. I don't want you to do my homework, just a guideline for me to study would be more than enough.
To check if a directory path exists you can use fstat (see: https://linux.die.net/man/2/fstat).
But if you have the full path, you will parse that and check all if every part's parent exists.
For example if the path is /usr/local/bin/test you should check if /usr exists, then /usr/local, then /usr/local/bin and finally /usr/local/bin/test.
To do this you could write a recursive function calling itself with the last folder part stripped (unless you're at the root level) before checking if the specified path exists.
When running scripts in bash, I have to write ./ in the beginning:
$ ./manage.py syncdb
If I don't, I get an error message:
$ manage.py syncdb
-bash: manage.py: command not found
What is the reason for this? I thought . is an alias for current folder, and therefore these two calls should be equivalent.
I also don't understand why I don't need ./ when running applications, such as:
user:/home/user$ cd /usr/bin
user:/usr/bin$ git
(which runs without ./)
Because on Unix, usually, the current directory is not in $PATH.
When you type a command the shell looks up a list of directories, as specified by the PATH variable. The current directory is not in that list.
The reason for not having the current directory on that list is security.
Let's say you're root and go into another user's directory and type sl instead of ls. If the current directory is in PATH, the shell will try to execute the sl program in that directory (since there is no other sl program). That sl program might be malicious.
It works with ./ because POSIX specifies that a command name that contain a / will be used as a filename directly, suppressing a search in $PATH. You could have used full path for the exact same effect, but ./ is shorter and easier to write.
EDIT
That sl part was just an example. The directories in PATH are searched sequentially and when a match is made that program is executed. So, depending on how PATH looks, typing a normal command may or may not be enough to run the program in the current directory.
When bash interprets the command line, it looks for commands in locations described in the environment variable $PATH. To see it type:
echo $PATH
You will have some paths separated by colons. As you will see the current path . is usually not in $PATH. So Bash cannot find your command if it is in the current directory. You can change it by having:
PATH=$PATH:.
This line adds the current directory in $PATH so you can do:
manage.py syncdb
It is not recommended as it has security issue, plus you can have weird behaviours, as . varies upon the directory you are in :)
Avoid:
PATH=.:$PATH
As you can “mask” some standard command and open the door to security breach :)
Just my two cents.
Your script, when in your home directory will not be found when the shell looks at the $PATH environment variable to find your script.
The ./ says 'look in the current directory for my script rather than looking at all the directories specified in $PATH'.
When you include the '.' you are essentially giving the "full path" to the executable bash script, so your shell does not need to check your PATH variable. Without the '.' your shell will look in your PATH variable (which you can see by running echo $PATH to see if the command you typed lives in any of the folders on your PATH. If it doesn't (as is the case with manage.py) it says it can't find the file. It is considered bad practice to include the current directory on your PATH, which is explained reasonably well here: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/faq/part2/section-13.html
On *nix, unlike Windows, the current directory is usually not in your $PATH variable. So the current directory is not searched when executing commands. You don't need ./ for running applications because these applications are in your $PATH; most likely they are in /bin or /usr/bin.
This question already has some awesome answers, but I wanted to add that, if your executable is on the PATH, and you get very different outputs when you run
./executable
to the ones you get if you run
executable
(let's say you run into error messages with the one and not the other), then the problem could be that you have two different versions of the executable on your machine: one on the path, and the other not.
Check this by running
which executable
and
whereis executable
It fixed my issues...I had three versions of the executable, only one of which was compiled correctly for the environment.
Rationale for the / POSIX PATH rule
The rule was mentioned at: Why do you need ./ (dot-slash) before executable or script name to run it in bash? but I would like to explain why I think that is a good design in more detail.
First, an explicit full version of the rule is:
if the path contains / (e.g. ./someprog, /bin/someprog, ./bin/someprog): CWD is used and PATH isn't
if the path does not contain / (e.g. someprog): PATH is used and CWD isn't
Now, suppose that running:
someprog
would search:
relative to CWD first
relative to PATH after
Then, if you wanted to run /bin/someprog from your distro, and you did:
someprog
it would sometimes work, but others it would fail, because you might be in a directory that contains another unrelated someprog program.
Therefore, you would soon learn that this is not reliable, and you would end up always using absolute paths when you want to use PATH, therefore defeating the purpose of PATH.
This is also why having relative paths in your PATH is a really bad idea. I'm looking at you, node_modules/bin.
Conversely, suppose that running:
./someprog
Would search:
relative to PATH first
relative to CWD after
Then, if you just downloaded a script someprog from a git repository and wanted to run it from CWD, you would never be sure that this is the actual program that would run, because maybe your distro has a:
/bin/someprog
which is in you PATH from some package you installed after drinking too much after Christmas last year.
Therefore, once again, you would be forced to always run local scripts relative to CWD with full paths to know what you are running:
"$(pwd)/someprog"
which would be extremely annoying as well.
Another rule that you might be tempted to come up with would be:
relative paths use only PATH, absolute paths only CWD
but once again this forces users to always use absolute paths for non-PATH scripts with "$(pwd)/someprog".
The / path search rule offers a simple to remember solution to the about problem:
slash: don't use PATH
no slash: only use PATH
which makes it super easy to always know what you are running, by relying on the fact that files in the current directory can be expressed either as ./somefile or somefile, and so it gives special meaning to one of them.
Sometimes, is slightly annoying that you cannot search for some/prog relative to PATH, but I don't see a saner solution to this.
When the script is not in the Path its required to do so. For more info read http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/sect_02_01.html
All has great answer on the question, and yes this is only applicable when running it on the current directory not unless you include the absolute path. See my samples below.
Also, the (dot-slash) made sense to me when I've the command on the child folder tmp2 (/tmp/tmp2) and it uses (double dot-slash).
SAMPLE:
[fifiip-172-31-17-12 tmp]$ ./StackO.sh
Hello Stack Overflow
[fifi#ip-172-31-17-12 tmp]$ /tmp/StackO.sh
Hello Stack Overflow
[fifi#ip-172-31-17-12 tmp]$ mkdir tmp2
[fifi#ip-172-31-17-12 tmp]$ cd tmp2/
[fifi#ip-172-31-17-12 tmp2]$ ../StackO.sh
Hello Stack Overflow
When running scripts in bash, I have to write ./ in the beginning:
$ ./manage.py syncdb
If I don't, I get an error message:
$ manage.py syncdb
-bash: manage.py: command not found
What is the reason for this? I thought . is an alias for current folder, and therefore these two calls should be equivalent.
I also don't understand why I don't need ./ when running applications, such as:
user:/home/user$ cd /usr/bin
user:/usr/bin$ git
(which runs without ./)
Because on Unix, usually, the current directory is not in $PATH.
When you type a command the shell looks up a list of directories, as specified by the PATH variable. The current directory is not in that list.
The reason for not having the current directory on that list is security.
Let's say you're root and go into another user's directory and type sl instead of ls. If the current directory is in PATH, the shell will try to execute the sl program in that directory (since there is no other sl program). That sl program might be malicious.
It works with ./ because POSIX specifies that a command name that contain a / will be used as a filename directly, suppressing a search in $PATH. You could have used full path for the exact same effect, but ./ is shorter and easier to write.
EDIT
That sl part was just an example. The directories in PATH are searched sequentially and when a match is made that program is executed. So, depending on how PATH looks, typing a normal command may or may not be enough to run the program in the current directory.
When bash interprets the command line, it looks for commands in locations described in the environment variable $PATH. To see it type:
echo $PATH
You will have some paths separated by colons. As you will see the current path . is usually not in $PATH. So Bash cannot find your command if it is in the current directory. You can change it by having:
PATH=$PATH:.
This line adds the current directory in $PATH so you can do:
manage.py syncdb
It is not recommended as it has security issue, plus you can have weird behaviours, as . varies upon the directory you are in :)
Avoid:
PATH=.:$PATH
As you can “mask” some standard command and open the door to security breach :)
Just my two cents.
Your script, when in your home directory will not be found when the shell looks at the $PATH environment variable to find your script.
The ./ says 'look in the current directory for my script rather than looking at all the directories specified in $PATH'.
When you include the '.' you are essentially giving the "full path" to the executable bash script, so your shell does not need to check your PATH variable. Without the '.' your shell will look in your PATH variable (which you can see by running echo $PATH to see if the command you typed lives in any of the folders on your PATH. If it doesn't (as is the case with manage.py) it says it can't find the file. It is considered bad practice to include the current directory on your PATH, which is explained reasonably well here: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/faq/part2/section-13.html
On *nix, unlike Windows, the current directory is usually not in your $PATH variable. So the current directory is not searched when executing commands. You don't need ./ for running applications because these applications are in your $PATH; most likely they are in /bin or /usr/bin.
This question already has some awesome answers, but I wanted to add that, if your executable is on the PATH, and you get very different outputs when you run
./executable
to the ones you get if you run
executable
(let's say you run into error messages with the one and not the other), then the problem could be that you have two different versions of the executable on your machine: one on the path, and the other not.
Check this by running
which executable
and
whereis executable
It fixed my issues...I had three versions of the executable, only one of which was compiled correctly for the environment.
Rationale for the / POSIX PATH rule
The rule was mentioned at: Why do you need ./ (dot-slash) before executable or script name to run it in bash? but I would like to explain why I think that is a good design in more detail.
First, an explicit full version of the rule is:
if the path contains / (e.g. ./someprog, /bin/someprog, ./bin/someprog): CWD is used and PATH isn't
if the path does not contain / (e.g. someprog): PATH is used and CWD isn't
Now, suppose that running:
someprog
would search:
relative to CWD first
relative to PATH after
Then, if you wanted to run /bin/someprog from your distro, and you did:
someprog
it would sometimes work, but others it would fail, because you might be in a directory that contains another unrelated someprog program.
Therefore, you would soon learn that this is not reliable, and you would end up always using absolute paths when you want to use PATH, therefore defeating the purpose of PATH.
This is also why having relative paths in your PATH is a really bad idea. I'm looking at you, node_modules/bin.
Conversely, suppose that running:
./someprog
Would search:
relative to PATH first
relative to CWD after
Then, if you just downloaded a script someprog from a git repository and wanted to run it from CWD, you would never be sure that this is the actual program that would run, because maybe your distro has a:
/bin/someprog
which is in you PATH from some package you installed after drinking too much after Christmas last year.
Therefore, once again, you would be forced to always run local scripts relative to CWD with full paths to know what you are running:
"$(pwd)/someprog"
which would be extremely annoying as well.
Another rule that you might be tempted to come up with would be:
relative paths use only PATH, absolute paths only CWD
but once again this forces users to always use absolute paths for non-PATH scripts with "$(pwd)/someprog".
The / path search rule offers a simple to remember solution to the about problem:
slash: don't use PATH
no slash: only use PATH
which makes it super easy to always know what you are running, by relying on the fact that files in the current directory can be expressed either as ./somefile or somefile, and so it gives special meaning to one of them.
Sometimes, is slightly annoying that you cannot search for some/prog relative to PATH, but I don't see a saner solution to this.
When the script is not in the Path its required to do so. For more info read http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/sect_02_01.html
All has great answer on the question, and yes this is only applicable when running it on the current directory not unless you include the absolute path. See my samples below.
Also, the (dot-slash) made sense to me when I've the command on the child folder tmp2 (/tmp/tmp2) and it uses (double dot-slash).
SAMPLE:
[fifiip-172-31-17-12 tmp]$ ./StackO.sh
Hello Stack Overflow
[fifi#ip-172-31-17-12 tmp]$ /tmp/StackO.sh
Hello Stack Overflow
[fifi#ip-172-31-17-12 tmp]$ mkdir tmp2
[fifi#ip-172-31-17-12 tmp]$ cd tmp2/
[fifi#ip-172-31-17-12 tmp2]$ ../StackO.sh
Hello Stack Overflow
I'm currently trying to add a new command to Minix. I want to add a command named smile, which I want to display continuously a smiling face :-)the same way the command yes do with y.
I already created the smile dir in src/commands, with smile.c and Makefile, and added smile to src/commands/Makefile.
But after compiling I still get
# smile
smile: not found
Is there another file/header/script where I must add a reference to smile?
Thank you in advance!
You either need to specify the directory, or the directory must be part of the PATH environment variable.
Try
./smile
if the program is in the current directory.
or
export PATH=".:$PATH"
smile
to always check the current directory for commands during this bash session.
If the program is in a subdirectory (eg. src/commands/smile) relative to the current directory,
you can add that to the path instead. Either explicitly,
src/commands/smile/smile
or by adding to the search path
export PATH="src/commands/smile:$PATH"
smile
placing your executable in the /usr/bin folder will allow the shell to recognize it. you should be able to type #smile now