Add expected error code for fd_prestat_dir_name #92
Conversation
|
is it strictly mentioned in the spec? |
|
It's not mentioned in the spec, https://docs.rs/wasi/latest/wasi/fn.fd_prestat_dir_name.html. But I'd say it's better to standardise on a single error code. In this case it shouldn't be much work to change it either way. As far as I understand, the purpose of the tests isn't so that they pass immediately on all runtimes, it's to highlight and standardise any differences in behaviour.
It probably does since this test is originally from the wasmtime set of tests. I've raised WebAssembly/WASI#555 to discuss standardising error codes from filesystem functions in general. |
my point is such a standardization should happen in spec, not tests.
i see. |
In the case that the user provides a buffer which is too small to fit the directory name, it makes more sense to return EINVAL rather than ENAMETOOLONG. ENAMETOOLONG has the speficic connotation that a path was longer than the maximum size permitted by the OS - that doesn't really match this error condition. We're keeping both error codes for now since we don't specify in the docs what error code should be returned.
zoraaver
force-pushed
the
correct-error-code
branch
from
e4b48e9
to
064bed6
Compare
zoraaver
changed the title
True, I've kept both error codes until we decide how to proceed with standardising error codes in general. |
In the case that the user provides a buffer which is too small to fit the directory name, it makes more sense to return EINVAL rather than ENAMETOOLONG. ENAMETOOLONG has the speficic connotation that a path was longer than the maximum size permitted by the OS - that doesn't really match this error condition. We're keeping both error codes for now since we don't specify in the docs what error code should be returned.