'command not found' when running fd with `-x cd`

[itscool900]

Checks

• I have read the troubleshooting section and still think this is a bug.

Describe the bug you encountered:

Attempting to run fd with arguments including -x cd.
I get the output:
[fd error]: Command not found: cd

Describe what you expected to happen:

fd cds to the output (assuming only one directory is found)

What version of fd are you using?

fd 10.4.2

Which operating system / distribution are you on?

Linux 6.12.76_1 x86_64
LSB Version:	1.0
Distributor ID:	VoidLinux
Description:	Void Linux
Release:	rolling
Codename:	void

[itscool900]

I understand that using a shell builtin command with -x may not be feasible or possible to implement with fd. However, if that is the case, then this should be documented for the sake of user-friendliness.

[tmccombs]

Some shell builtins could be supported by #1406.

However, they would be run inside a separate shell. If you are hoping for cd to change the directory of the calling shell, there is just no way for that to work.

[phuclv90]

I understand that using a shell builtin command with -x may not be feasible or possible to implement with fd. However, if that is the case, then this should be documented for the sake of user-friendliness.

I don't think it's necessary. find command also doesn't list this or any builtin commands. Besides, subshells can't modify parent environments so neither find or fd can change into the found directory

[itscool900]

The issue is about fd, not find.
And I argue that it would be more user-friendly to tell the user about the fact you mentioned; otherwise, we set a precedent that the user is expected to read all possible relevant documentation before running any command using fd.

[tmccombs]

The point is that similar programs like find (and xargs) don't feel the need to explicitly point this out, so why does fd?

[itscool900]

fd explicitly aims to be user-friendly. find is notoriously hard to use, and its lack of explanation for this caveat is one of the reasons.

Also, adding a 'Cannot use shell builtins' error doesn't seem to have any real disadvantages.

[tmccombs]

Also, adding a 'Cannot use shell builtins' error doesn't seem to have any real disadvantages.

How could fd know that you are trying to use a shell builtin? Even if it included a list of shell builtins for every shell, how would it know that it wasn't just a typo, or you meant to use a command that had the same name as a builtin?