Inconsistent path resolution with symbolic links between display editor and display runtime
维护者通常 2 天内回复
还没有人认领这个 Issue。
评估
调研方向
Start by reproducing the issue on Linux with the directory and symlink setup in the report. Compare how the display editor and display runtime resolve the Embedded Display's relative path. Done means the runtime finds and opens test-target.bob at the location selected in the editor when the source display is accessed through the symlink.
由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。
描述
My realization of the week: at least on Linux, when symbolic links are at play, a/b/../c doesn't necessarily means a/c (b can be a symbolic link, so a/b/.. means the parent of the target directory of b).
When using symbolic linked directories, it seems the display editor and the display runtime doesn't resolve relative paths the same way.
How to reproduce:
-
In a given directory, run:
mkdir -p test/a/b ln -sfn ./a/b test/c -
Open Phoebus, and:
- create a display
test-target.bobin the newly createdtestfolder, - create a display
test-source.bobin thetest/c/folder (through the symbolic link), - in
test-source.bob, create an Embedded Display, and using the Phoebus interface, make it point totest-target.bob, - run the display, and observe Phoebus saying that it can't find the file
- create a display
Created structure:
.
└── test
├── a
│ └── b
│ └── test-source.bob
├── c -> ./a/b
└── test-target.bob
The created Embedded Display points to ../../test-target.bob which correct: relative to the display this is test/c/../../test-target.bob which resolves to test/a/b/../../test-target.bob -> test/test-target.bob (and not test-target.bob).
For us, this happened because we develop some of our displays in different Git repositories, and have a different structure to present to the operators in production. For development, we created that structure using symbolic links so that modifying displays in that structure modifies the displays in our Git repositories:
dev-bundle
├── sources
│ └── our-internal-gitlab.example.com
│ ├── git-repo1
│ ├── git-repo2
│ └── etc.
└── views
├── LCS
│ └── LLRF -> ../../sources/our-internal-gitlab.example.com/LLRF-views
└── MCS -> ../sources/our-internal-gitlab.example.com/MCS-views
- 主要语言
- Java
- 星标
- 130
- 派生
- 132
- 平均合并
- 2 天 11 小时
- 30 天内合并 PR
- 19
环境准备
- 没有 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 文件
- 有 Pull Request 模板
- 没有贡献指南
从这里开始
- 先读完整个 Issue，再读项目的贡献指南。
- 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
- Fork 仓库，在一个分支上完成修改。
- 提交 Pull Request，并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。
ControlSystemStudio/phoebus 的其他 Issue
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 62/100
ControlSystemStudio/phoebus#3983 ·
维护者通常 2 天内回复
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 72/100
ControlSystemStudio/phoebus#3979 ·
维护者通常 2 天内回复
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 80/100
ControlSystemStudio/phoebus#3962 ·
维护者通常 2 天内回复
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 65/100
ControlSystemStudio/phoebus#3865 · 1 条评论 ·
维护者通常 2 天内回复
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 52/100
ControlSystemStudio/phoebus#3980 ·
维护者通常 2 天内回复
查看 ControlSystemStudio/phoebus 的全部 Issue
相似的 Issue
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 68/100
ome/ome-codecs#48 ·
-
难度 1/5 1 小时以内 新手友好度 90/100
tonihele/OpenKeeper#672 ·
维护者通常 4 天内回复
-
Shaded google-api-client trust stores still include AAA Certificate Services (eMudhra CA compromise)未关闭
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 72/100
snowflakedb/snowflake-jdbc#2763 ·
-
难度 1/5 1 小时以内 新手友好度 79/100
java-native-access/jna#1746 ·
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 78/100
zamojski/TowerCollector#292 · 1 条评论 ·