Does my pull request is ok for you ? would you like to merge it ?

When will this change be released?

I use this code since 1 month and it works great..

please merge..

I have similar concerns with this PR as with #35: ignoring every single error feels wrong to me. If the goal is to continue on broken symbolic links, is there a way to specifically check if the error is for a broken symbolic link, and only continue in that case?

I think that the feature we want is that recursive-readdir return files that are "ok" in all case. Then, by setting option forceContinue=true we don't care about the error and the number of files that thrown error.. we just want the liste of files without error. With this PR, you close all your issues and pending PR.

I you want just correct the symlink error, I think you should add a test to know if the current file is a symlink and if the error code is "ENOENT". I could do an other PR later for this if you want..

@jergason this feature fit the needs of @kevincaradant and many others ! I think you should merge it in your repo ???

@popod I'm happy to revisit this if you handle the objection I specified: continuing on only ENOENT. I'm closing this PR but feel free to open another one handling that case specifically.

@jergason why only for ENOENT ? In my case I want that recursive-readdir return the path of all files that throw no error of any kind.. By continuing on only ENOENT, this is not what I want..

As I tell you in my last message, I should add another option to handle the ENOENT case. And for that I will open an other PR.

Ok for you ?

@jergason , Indeed, my issue #46 is typically the case where ENOENT is useless. On some files, I get a EPERM error ! :)
I think @popod propose to you a good idea.