could we have a little test to make sure that open euwiqoeu gives a file not found error? 😋

Looked into the tests and found one that was already testing this functionality, updated to check file not found is within the error message rather than general not found which was used before.

I'm new to Rust, is there a way to capture the actual error instead and assert it is of type nu_protocol::ShellError::FileNotFound? Probably is a little overkill, but is how I often do testing in Python.

Let me know if that fulfills the requirements you expect.

because

~ INSERT > open i_dont_exist.txt
Error: nu::shell::directory_not_found

  × Directory not found
   ╭─[entry #1:1:1]
 1 │ open i_dont_exist.txt
   ·      ────────┬───────
   ·              ╰── directory not found
   ╰────

should have file not found now, i think the change you made to the existing test is very nice 👌

I'm new to Rust, is there a way to capture the actual error instead and assert it is of type nu_protocol::ShellError::FileNotFound? Probably is a little overkill, but is how I often do testing in Python.

not sure at all in that case 🤔

nu! is testing as if the test was in the REPL, so it does not see the ShellError::FileNotFound, but only the output as you'd do in the REPL, this is why actual.err is a string and not a ShellError and we need to use .contains on it.

@amtoine OOI what's the process for getting this reviewed and merged in? Is it done on a schedule or quite ad-hoc?

@amtoine OOI what's the process for getting this reviewed and merged in? Is it done on a schedule or quite ad-hoc?

there's no schedule to land PRs, only to release Nushell every 4 weeks 😋

this PR touches parts of the source base i'm not familiar with, so it might need another quick look from another member of the core team, but other than that, it looks it's in a good shape to land soon 😌

@GPadley I think we're ready to land this if you can resolve the conflicts. Thanks!

Apologies for the delay - have fixed merge conflicts with main so should be ready to go once all check are passed.

After reviewing this again, it looks like we have 13 places where file_only is set to false and 1 place where it's set to true. I'm wondering if it would be better just to remove all the file_only bools and just change the error message to "file or directory not found"?

I'm not sure it's worth all these changes just to have it used in 1 place. What do others think?

After reviewing this again, it looks like we have 13 places where file_only is set to false and 1 place where it's set to true. I'm wondering if it would be better just to remove all the file_only bools and just change the error message to "file or directory not found"?

I'm not sure it's worth all these changes just to have it used in 1 place. What do others think?

sounds sensible to me to say "file or directory", this is what Bash is doing and it does the job, in the end, files and directories are mostly the same thing in the file system 😋

$ ls euqwio
ls: cannot access 'euqwio': No such file or directory

$ cd ewuqi
bash: cd: ewuqi: No such file or directory

So there are a couple ways I could do this:

• Remove the DirectoryNotFound and FileNotFound error messages and only have a FileOrDirectoryNotFound error
• Add a FileOrDirectoryNotFound error and update this single instance.
  What are people's opinions?

@GPadley thank you! I had reported the linked issue, and its cool you fixed it :)