GNU bug report logs - #23089
25.0.92; dired-goto-file in `find-dired' buffers

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 23089 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 23089 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tino Calancha <f92capac <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 25.0.92; dired-goto-file in `find-dired' buffers
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:22:51 +0900 (JST)

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dired buffers output from `find-dired' commands, usually contains
filename including '/'.  Command `dired-goto-file' fails
on those files.

; emacs-lisp: 
emacs -Q $emacs-lisp
M-x find-name-dired RET *.el RET
j language/thai-word.el RET

;It cannot find the file.


In GNU Emacs 25.0.92.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.30)
 of 2016-03-22 built on calancha-pc
Repository revision: dbfbedd3d0f3afcfb811eae0e1a7b1c33fb27735

[dired.patch (text/plain, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 23089 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Tino Calancha <f92capac <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 23089 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#23089: 25.0.92; dired-goto-file in `find-dired' buffers
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:39:15 +0300

> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:22:51 +0900 (JST)
> From: Tino Calancha <f92capac <at> gmail.com>
> 
> Dired buffers output from `find-dired' commands, usually contains
> filename including '/'.  Command `dired-goto-file' fails
> on those files.
> 
> ; emacs-lisp: 
> emacs -Q $emacs-lisp
> M-x find-name-dired RET *.el RET
> j language/thai-word.el RET
> 
> ;It cannot find the file.

Thanks for the report and the patch.  Does the alternative patch below
look correct, and does it give good results?

diff --git a/lisp/dired.el b/lisp/dired.el
index ef22d45..5741872 100644
--- a/lisp/dired.el
+++ b/lisp/dired.el
@@ -2736,9 +2736,18 @@ dired-goto-file
 		 (save-excursion
 		   (goto-char (point-min))
 		   (dired-goto-file-1 file file (point-max)))
-		 ;; Otherwise, look for it as a relative name.  The
-		 ;; hair is to get the result of `dired-goto-subdir'
-		 ;; without calling it if we don't have any subdirs.
+                 ;; Next, look for it as a relative name with leading
+                 ;; subdirectories.  (This happens in Dired buffers
+                 ;; created by find-dired, for example.)
+                 (save-excursion
+                   (goto-char (point-min))
+                   (dired-goto-file-1 (file-relative-name file
+                                                          default-directory)
+                                      file (point-max)))
+		 ;; Otherwise, look for it as a relative name, a base
+		 ;; name only.  The hair is to get the result of
+		 ;; `dired-goto-subdir' without calling it if we don't
+		 ;; have any subdirs.
 		 (save-excursion
 		   (when (if (string= dir (expand-file-name default-directory))
 			     (goto-char (point-min))

Message #11 received at 23089 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tino Calancha <f92capac <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Tino Calancha <f92capac <at> gmail.com>, 23089 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#23089: 25.0.92; dired-goto-file in `find-dired' buffers
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:21:06 +0900 (JST)

> Does the alternative patch below
> look correct, and does it give good results?
Yes, your alternative patch also fix the problem, and it's more elegant.

Message #16 received at 23089-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Tino Calancha <f92capac <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 23089-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#23089: 25.0.92; dired-goto-file in `find-dired' buffers
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:20:02 +0300

> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:21:06 +0900 (JST)
> From: Tino Calancha <f92capac <at> gmail.com>
> cc: Tino Calancha <f92capac <at> gmail.com>, 23089 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > Does the alternative patch below
> > look correct, and does it give good results?
> Yes, your alternative patch also fix the problem, and it's more elegant.

Thanks, I pushed it to emacs-25 branch.

Previous Next

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