Skip to content

guarantee that remove_dir will only return ErrorKind::NotFound if the file does not exist #433

Closed
@lolbinarycat

Description

Proposal

Problem statement

with the new error handling logic introduced in rust-lang/rust#127623, the implementation in library/std/src/sys_common/fs.rs relies on this guarantee for correctness, but it is not actually provided. this could potentially allow an implementation for a new platform to return NotFound for other classes of errors and slip past review. guaranteeing this would also mean that any instances of this guarantee being broken would be a definite bug, and not just a platform-specific quirk.

Solution sketch

under the Errors section, add a line like "this function will only return an error of the kind NotFound if the specified file does not exist."

it should also be noted that the inverse is not true. if the file does not exist, remove_file may return other errors, such if the containing directory is not readable.

Alternatives

add this as an internal guarantee, but not one that is part of the user-facing documentation. this allows it to be changed in the future, if that somehow becomes desirable (perhaps if a platform makes file non-existance impossible to efficiently differentiate from some other type of error, although that seems unlikely)

What happens now?

This issue contains an API change proposal (or ACP) and is part of the libs-api team feature lifecycle. Once this issue is filed, the libs-api team will review open proposals as capability becomes available. Current response times do not have a clear estimate, but may be up to several months.

Possible responses

The libs team may respond in various different ways. First, the team will consider the problem (this doesn't require any concrete solution or alternatives to have been proposed):

  • We think this problem seems worth solving, and the standard library might be the right place to solve it.
  • We think that this probably doesn't belong in the standard library.

Second, if there's a concrete solution:

  • We think this specific solution looks roughly right, approved, you or someone else should implement this. (Further review will still happen on the subsequent implementation PR.)
  • We're not sure this is the right solution, and the alternatives or other materials don't give us enough information to be sure about that. Here are some questions we have that aren't answered, or rough ideas about alternatives we'd want to see discussed.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    ACP-acceptedAPI Change Proposal is accepted (seconded with no objections)T-libs-apiapi-change-proposalA proposal to add or alter unstable APIs in the standard libraries

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions