hasher: align -c behaviour with coreutils#196
Closed
nkraetzschmar wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
Align -c/--check with coreutils by treating it as a mode flag instead of an option argument. Process remaining argv as checkfiles (stdin if none) and split verification logic into process_checkfiles() and process_checkfile().
Owner
|
Applied, thanks. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #194
Make
-c/--checka mode flag instead of an option requiring an argument, aligning libkcapi behaviour with GNU coreutils, BusyBox, and FreeBSD utilities1Verification now operates on remaining argv operands, supports multiple checkfiles, and reads from stdin when none are provided.
Split verification logic into
process_checkfilesandprocess_checkfile, reusing a singlekcapi_handleacross all check files.Footnotes
https://github.com/smuellerDD/libkcapi/issues/194#issuecomment-3960404275 ↩