[erlang-questions] UNC filename handling

[Steve Strong]

Excellent, many thanks John

> On 21 Mar 2019, at 16:50, John Högberg <john@REDACTED> wrote:
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> Thanks for reporting this, I can confirm that it's a bug in our UNC path handling. I've included a fix in our nightly builds, and it'll be released in OTP 22-rc2 if all goes well.
> 
> Regards,
> John Högberg
> 
> On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 15:36 +0000, Steve Strong wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Seeing a strange thing on Windows systems:
>> 
>> (foo@REDACTED <mailto:foo@REDACTED>)55> file:list_dir("z:/Signal-53-mp4/frame_store").             
>> {ok,["100","2124","2142","2161"]}
>> 
>> (foo@REDACTED <mailto:foo@REDACTED>)56> file:list_dir("//HB-SVR/Video/Signal-53-mp4/frame_store"). 
>> {ok,["frame_store"]}
>> 
>> 
>> Z: is mapped to //HB-SVR/Video, so I would have expected these two commands to produce the same result, but the one going through the UNC form is giving the wrong answer (the contents of the frame_store folder are “100”, “2121”, “2142" and “2161” as the call through the mapped drive correctly returned).  This issue, in turn, causes other commands such as filelib:wildcard to return the incorrect results when handed UNC paths.
>> 
>> This is running Erlang 21.2 / erts 10.2
>> 
>> Is this a known issue, or am I misunderstanding how the UNC paths should behave?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Steve
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions@REDACTED <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED>
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions <http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions>
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20190322/36f6a249/attachment.htm>