Request for review: 7190897 (fs) Files.isWritable method returns false when the path is writable (win).

[Alan Bateman]

On 28/02/2013 15:17, Alexey Utkin wrote:
> That is not single, but 4 additional parameters ( FILE_GENERIC_READ, 
> FILE_GENERIC_WRITE, FILE_GENERIC_EXECUTE, FILE_ALL_ACCESS) - that are 
> relatively complicate masks. That parameters have to be changed 
> consistently to avoid the problem (there is the analogy with 
> orthogonal basis in geometry If you understand what I mean). Now we 
> use the [AccessCheckForFile] just in [nio] package. We can extend the 
> implementation any time we need it.
Okay, I can live with this but would be nice to get it to AccessCheck at 
most point.


>> checkFileAccess ignores the exception from AccessCheck whereas I 
>> should it should be translated to an IOException.
> That is by design. Any problem with the [checkFileAccess] need to be 
> converted to the [false] return value. At the end point - in the
> [WindowsFileSystemProvider.checkAccess] function - the [false] return 
> value would be converted to the [AccessDeniedException] exception - 
> that is desired code flow.
My point is that AccessCheck can fail for other reasons too and it would 
be good to get these reason into the exception so that it is not lost. 
It might have to AccessDeniedException if there aren't specific errors 
documented but at least the reason will be in the exception message to 
help someone figure it the issue. So I think it would be better to 
translate the exception rather than returning a boolean.


>>
>> Otherwise I think this is good. You don't have a test case but I 
>> can't think how this could be tested anyway as we already have tests 
>> for checkAccess and isWritable.
> I have the test. It is attached to the bug as Netbeans project, but it 
> need manual security setup in security tab of the [demofile.txt] file 
> (as shown in attached screenshot). By changing the "Write" check box 
> on the [demofile.txt] file security dialog, test result have varying 
> accordingly.
> Seems the web bug-db interface is not synchronized yet.
Thanks, I guessed that an automated test would not be possible.

-Alan.