-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Restrict directory names #354
Comments
sgtm. Regex would be a bit shorter as (spaces for clarity)
|
Sounds good to me! |
Overall, sounds very good. Some minor comments below.
What are you referring to? We don't have a
Why not use the same for files and directories? I wonder why we felt that filenames must be of length at least 2?
👍 |
My mistake. Fixed.
One reason is secret:
foo:
bar: So if we allow a directory named
No idea, but I like it. |
As an extra gift, somewhat related, I would really-really like to forbid:
i.e., forbid having a test group and a test case in the same directory (in this case |
Agreed; let's not allow that.
That's not actually the case in YAML itself, but there are some frameworks that automatically translate this into |
In
2023-07-draft
, we haveThis allows
1.in
,aa
andfoo.bar.baz_baz-baz
but disallows1_
. Fine so far.For directories, there is no restriction, as far as I can tell. Thus the following are all valid:
secret/1/
,secret/1/1.in
input_validators/v
(containinginput_validators/v/validate.cpp
andinput_validators/v/validate
.and so on. I think all of these are fine.
What is also currently allowed, as far as I can tell are
secret/_/
,secret/huge.connected
,secret/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/1.in
,input_validators/[﷽
,submissions/😊/th.py
,as well as several other references to validators, testgroups, testcases, visualisers or submissions that use “whatever the operating system supports”.
I propose to tighten the specification as follows:
Moreover, I would like to clarify that
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: