[p4ruby] fix for symlink-in-PWD problem

bob p4 jeffperforce at gmail.com
Tue Mar 11 16:51:30 PDT 2008

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Tony Smith <tony at smee.org> wrote:
>  On Monday 10 March 2008 18:11:06 bob p4 wrote:
>  > I claim the fix is compatible with the default behavior; that is why I
>  > suggested it.  I may be wrong, but that remains to be shown.  Can you
>  > give an example where this would break existing code?
>  Anytime there's a symlink in the cwd and it's part of the client root/view,
>  but the linked location isn't, existing code using local syntax would break.

Your example is a good one.  It's obvious in hindsight because it is
the converse of my case.  I was thinking that perforce should be
smarter when PWD doesn't match the depot root --- why not expand PWD
to see if it matches?  If it does, then it's safe to say that is the
client root I intended.

In your case, the PWD does match the depot, but if you expand it we
get something not in the client root.  I don't immediately see the
possible benefit of this trickery, but I won't rule it out.

So I will revise my suggestion.  If and only if PWD is not in the
client root, then perforce should try expanding PWD.  This covers both
cases, I believe.

P4ruby is only mirroring perforce, so I can't exactly fault p4ruby.  I
do believe perforce is bordering on incorrect behavior here, so I
guess I'll take it up with them.  In the meantime I can patch p4ruby
on my side to "fix" perforce.

Theoretically speaking, though, what are the possible downsides of
p4ruby expanding PWD when it is not in the client root?  The upside,
of course, is that it there is one less "wtf?" situation for
programmers to encounter.


More information about the p4ruby mailing list