`fish_is_root_user` only checks `$USER` but not actual uid

[septatrix]

fish, version 3.4.1

The list for which the red root prompt is chosen is hardcoded and can lead to false positives and negatives.
Special purpose distros and containers sometimes use an uncommon root username which is not in the current list.
On the other side there might be users coming from windows which are used to having an "Administrator" account set up manually which will not have a uid of 0.

While this function is only used for prompts currently it can still be confusing.
Instead it should simply check if test (id -u) = 0 holds true.

[faho]

Duplicate of #8583

[faho]

On the other side there might be users coming from windows which are used to having an "Administrator" account set up manually which will not have a uid of 0.

If you have specialty needs you can override the function. That's why it's a function.

The bigger issue is $USER not matching up with the uid is why we should fix $USER.

[septatrix]

No this is not a duplicate of the linked issue. Even if USER is correct it might not be in the list of root users root toor Administrator or a user might not be root yet still have a name from that list.

[faho]

Again: If you have special needs you can modify the function.

Having a root user not in that list isn't something you typically encounter. Having an admin user with a UID that isn't 0 isn't something you typically encounter.

This is a simple, managable default that handles the majority of use cases. If you need more you can customize it.

[septatrix]

Having a root user not in that list isn't something you typically encounter. Having an admin user with a UID that isn't 0 isn't something you typically encounter.

The former is indeed rare though the latter is impossible because every root user has a uid of 0 by definition(!).

Again: If you have special needs you can modify the function.
This is a simple, managable default that handles the majority of use cases. If you need more you can customize it.

That I know, though I think all users would benefit from a more precise function. And checking the uid would test for the very definition of being root.

[anordal]

septatrix has a point, though: He is proposing a logical simplification that is more correct. AFAICS, the drawback is only that id is not a builtin.

As for why it is more correct:
It depends on what you want to know, of course, but if you want to know whether you have the power of root, it's not the name that matters, but precisely the effective user id (as in geteuid()). To my surprise, that is indeed what id -u claims to print, according to its manpage.

[faho]

The case of being root should simply be fixed by fixing the value of $USER - #8583.

That's because that is the thing you would print in your prompt if you printed the user. The prior value of $USER doesn't really matter in most cases, it's basically all the name related to the effective uid.

And if you have any other specialty needs, like you have a system where an admin user doesn't have a uid of 0 or a name that's not "root" or something similarly well-known, you can redefine the function for your specialty needs.

Which is why I'm calling this a duplicate of 8583.

[septatrix]

Using the $USER is simply a Jacky workaround which works 98% of the time and what you proposed in 8583 is simply a workaround atop another workaround to bump that number to 99%. It still does not fix the underlying problem: The name of the user has no underlying causal connection to what is means to have root privileges.
Yes, there is a strong correlation in most distros but why can we not simply use the correct definition, please?