[jayhemnani9910]

Every fatal error is printed with the prefix twice:

$ tar -tf nonexistent.tar
tar: tar: nonexistent.tar: Cannot open: No such file or directory
$ tar -cf /nonexistent-dir/x.tar .
tar: tar: Cannot create archive '/nonexistent-dir/x.tar': No such file or directory (os error 2)

GNU tar 1.35 prints tar: nonexistent.tar: Cannot open: No such file or directory. The same happens with the latest-commit release binary.

The TarError messages carried their own tar: , and uucore adds the utility name again when uumain returns the error. The messages no longer include it. report_recoverable and finish_after_previous_errors print the error themselves, so they now add uucore::util_name(), which keeps the recoverable messages (tar: ../x: Member name contains '..') as they were when the binary is called tar.

Tests: a new test_error_message_has_one_prefix fails on main. Three tests in src/uu/tar/tests/test_errors.rs checked the Display text with the tar: included; they now check it without. cargo test --workspace passes (112), cargo fmt --check and cargo clippy --all-targets -- -D warnings are clean.

Not changed: the Removing leading ... from member names warning in create.rs still writes tar: itself.

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

An organization owner can choose the repository organization as the billing source for reviews requested by members with a paid Copilot license. Learn about Copilot code review billing. Review the Copilot code review billing settings.

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

1 warning

⚠️ 4 benchmarks are dominated by system calls

System calls cannot be simulated consistently and are left out of the measure. The reported value understates the real cost. Switch to the Walltime instrument to measure them.

Learn more about system calls

See affected benchmarks

✅ 7 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing jayhemnani9910:error-prefix-once (5586a94) with main (b453849)}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.17%. Comparing base (791ae26) to head (5586a94).
⚠️ Report is 100 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #414      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.84%   98.17%   +1.32%     
==========================================
  Files          11       15       +4     
  Lines        1492     1971     +479     
  Branches       29       39      +10     
==========================================
+ Hits         1445     1935     +490     
+ Misses         46       35      -11     
  Partials        1        1              

Flag	Coverage Δ
macos_latest	98.17% <100.00%> (+1.32%)	⬆️
ubuntu_latest	98.17% <100.00%> (+1.32%)	⬆️
windows_latest	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[sylvestre]

could be report_recoverable(&TarError::PreviousErrors)?; no?

[jayhemnani9910]

Yes, done in 5586a94.

[sylvestre]

could you please do that in test_extract_nonexistent_archive instead?
something like .stderr_contains(": nonexistent.tar: Cannot open") plus stderr_does_not_contain("tar: tar:"), no unwrap needed

[jayhemnani9910]

Moved into test_extract_nonexistent_archive in 5586a94. I check stderr_does_not_contain(": tar: ") rather than "tar: tar:": the test binary is tarapp, so main prints tarapp: tar: nonexistent.tar: ... and "tar: tar:" passes there. With ": tar: " the test fails on main and passes here.

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has insufficient remaining quota.

An organization owner can choose the repository organization as the billing source for reviews requested by members with a paid Copilot license. Learn about Copilot code review billing. Review the Copilot code review billing settings.