Behavior of path.basename is different from basename command. #7519

Activity

1. mscdex

   added

   pathIssues and PRs related to the path subsystem.Issues and PRs related to the path subsystem.

   feature requestIssues requesting new Node.js features.Issues requesting new Node.js features.

   on Jul 2, 2016
2. sttk commented on Jul 3, 2016

   

   sttk

   on Jul 3, 2016

   Author

   More actions

   PS:

   path.basename('//')
   // => ''
   path.basename('//', '')
   // => ''
   path.basename('//', '/')
   // => '//'
   path.basename('//', '//')
   // => ''

   $ basename //
   /
   $ basename // ''
   /
   $ basename // /
   /
   $ basename // //
   /
   
3. Fishrock123 commented on Jul 4, 2016

   

   Fishrock123

   on Jul 4, 2016

   Contributor

   More actions

   I don't think there is anywhere stating that it would be the same as basename(1)?

   That is pretty curious though.
4. bnoordhuis commented on Jul 4, 2016

   

   bnoordhuis

   on Jul 4, 2016

   Last edited by bnoordhuis

   Member

   More actions

   path.basename() is closer to man 3 basename than it is to man 1 basename. Using python's ctypes because I don't feel like writing a C program to demonstrate the point:

   $ python
   >>> from ctypes import *
   >>> basename = CDLL('libc.so.6').basename; basename.restype = c_char_p
   >>> basename('/')
   ''
   >>> basename('//')
   ''
   

   The only mildly surprising behavior of node's basename() is this:

   path.basename('//', '/')
   // => '//'
   

   The second '/' is interpreted as the extension. You could argue the result is wrong but the entire expression is rather nonsensical. A clear case of GIGO, IMO.
5. sttk commented on Jul 4, 2016

   

   sttk

   on Jul 4, 2016

   Author

   More actions

   I sended this issue as a point I noticed, and It's not that I want you to modify it strongly. If you don't think that this is not a problem, this issue can be closed.
6. silverwind

   closed this as completedon Jul 4, 2016
7. sttk commented on Jul 7, 2016

   

   sttk

   on Jul 7, 2016

   Author

   More actions

   I found one more different behavior of path.basename from basename command.
   But if you think this is not a problem, you can ignore this post.

   path.basename('aaa', 'aaa')
   // => ''

   $ basename aaa aaa
   aaa