From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2009-05-12T03:30:08+09:00
Subject: Re: File.basename bug?

On 11.05.2009 20:10, lasitha wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Reid Thompson <reid.thompson@ateb.com> wrote:
>> How often do people get bitten by this?
>> When operating on a file in the current directory, './' must be
>> prepended to a filename for File.basename to work...
> 
> Hi, i'm either not understanding your issue or not seeing it on my box:
> 
> $: cd /tmp; touch by.touch
> 
> $: ruby19 -ve "puts File.basename 'by.touch'"
> ruby 1.9.1p0 (2009-01-30) [i386-darwin8.11.1]
> by.touch
> 
> $: ruby   -ve "puts File.basename 'by.touch'"
> ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i686-darwin8]
> by.touch
> 
>> $ cat bug.rb
>> DATAFORMAT_VERSION=1
>>
>> def processInputFile(inputFpath)
>>    puts "inputFpath #{inputFpath}"
>>    dirpath = File.dirname(inputFpath)
>>
>>    outputfile = File.basename(inputFpath)

This can be combined as

dir, out = File.split input_path

>>    outputfile.gsub!("pp_",'')
>>    outputfile = dirpath + '/' + 'SDF_' + "#{DATAFORMAT_VERSION}" + '_' + outputfile
>>    puts "outputfile #{outputfile}"
>>    puts "inputFpath #{inputFpath}"
>>
>> end
>>
>> processInputFile("pp_a_test_file_name")
>> rthompso@raker>/home/rthompso
>> $ ruby bug.rb
>> inputFpath pp_a_test_file_name
>> outputfile ./SDF_1_a_test_file_name
>> inputFpath a_test_file_name

This output cannot come from the code above as "inputFpath" does not 
change in the method.

>> rthompso@raker>/home/rthompso
>> $ ruby -v
>> ruby 1.8.7 (2009-04-08 patchlevel 160) [i686-linux]
>>
>> rthompso@raker>/home/rthompso
>> $ vi bug.rb
>> rthompso@raker>/home/rthompso
>> $ ruby bug.rb
>> inputFpath /home/rthompso/pp_a_test_file_name
>> outputfile /home/rthompso/SDF_1_a_test_file_name
>> inputFpath /home/rthompso/pp_a_test_file_name
> 
> Scanned over the above but couldn't spot what you might be on about :)
> Perhaps you could clarify or wittle the example down a bit further?

I am assuming that not all tests were done with the same version of the 
code and this might have led to confusion. :-)

Kind regards

	robert