Request for review: 7190897 (fs) Files.isWritable method returns false when the path is writable (win). - ver. 1

Alexey Utkin alexey.utkin at
Fri Mar 1 11:45:55 UTC 2013

On 28.02.2013 19:41, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 28/02/2013 15:17, Alexey Utkin wrote:
>> That is not single, but 4 additional parameters ( FILE_GENERIC_READ, 
>> 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.
I did.
>>> 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.
That is possible, but includes pre-requirements for installed MS tools. 
That is not a good idea.

New version of the fix was prepared.
Bug description:
The suggested fix:


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list