GNU bug report logs - #14023
dirname/basename unexpected results when run by xargs -I

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Juho-Pekka Kuitunen <artanicus <at> mythmardyl.org>
To: Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com>
Cc: 14023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#14023: dirname/basename unexpected results when run by xargs -I
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 04:52:25 +0200

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com> wrote:
> Juho-Pekka Kuitunen wrote:
>> Reproduce example;
>> $ echo "testdir/testfile" | xargs -I '{}' echo '{}', dir: $(echo dirname '{}') = $(dirname '{}')
>
> Thank you for the report and the very nice test case.  It made
> debugging this problem so very much simpler.
>
>> Expected output;
>> testdir/testfile, dir: dirname testdir/testfile = testdir
>>
>> Actual output;
>> testdir/testfile, dir: dirname testdir/testfile = .
>
> Ah...  But you have missed a critical point!  :-)  The $(...) is
> expanded by the current shell and not by the xargs.  Use echo to see
> what you are asking.
>
>   $ echo xargs -I '{}' echo '{}', dir: $(echo dirname '{}') = $(dirname '{}')
>   xargs -I {} echo {}, dir: dirname {} = .
>
>> This behavior seems to be limited to the xargs -I replace-str usage
>> pattern, any other way I can think of running dirname works fine.
>
> The problem is the $(...) which is running the dirname during the
> earlier shell command line parsing pass and passing the result off to
> the xargs command.

So if I understand correctly, subshell replacements gets executed
before xargs fills in the replacements? I tried to rule out this
wonkyness with the "$(echo '{}')" bit and it seemed to work in the
correct order. The echo should produce an empty string if the subshell
was evaluated too soon?

>
>> Basename has similarly wonky behavior, it prints the full string
>> instead of doing any stripping.
>
> Also using $(...)?  :-)
>
>> Not sure if there's a bug involved (or if it's on the findutils or
>> coreutils side). Could also just be something silly I'm overlooking.
>> I've tested this with findutils 4.4.2 and coreutils 8.5 & 8.13 with
>> identical results.
>
> So...  Not a bug.  Agreed?  (I am having a good chuckle.  I hope you
> will too.)  We will close the bug then.
>

Very much possibly not a bug but I'm not 100% convinced yet. I've been
chuckling at this all evening, love a good brain teaser even if it
turns out to be something I overlooked instead of a bug. :-)

> Bob



--
Juho-Pekka Kuitunen

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.