On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > James <rouzier@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> @@ -46,15 +46,15 @@ test_expect_success 'git clean' ' >> mkdir -p build docs && >> touch a.out src/part3.c docs/manual.txt obj.o build/lib.so && >> git clean && >> - test -f Makefile && >> - test -f README && >> - test -f src/part1.c && >> - test -f src/part2.c && >> - test ! -f a.out && >> - test ! -f src/part3.c && >> - test -f docs/manual.txt && >> - test -f obj.o && >> - test -f build/lib.so >> + test_path_is_file Makefile && >> + test_path_is_file README && >> + test_path_is_file src/part1.c && >> + test_path_is_file src/part2.c && >> + test_path_is_missing a.out && >> + test_path_is_missing src/part3.c && >> + test_path_is_file docs/manual.txt && >> + test_path_is_file obj.o && >> + test_path_is_file build/lib.so > > The verbosity of this conversion makes me wonder if we want to have > "test_paths_are_files" and "test_paths_are_missing". For that > matter, this test does not really care about the distinction between > files and directories (e.g. some tests said "test ! -d docs" and > would have passed if there were a 'docs' regular file, but what we > really care about is the path 'docs' is _gone_), so what we want may > be test_paths_exist and test_paths_are_missing. With that, the > above hunk would become > > test_paths_exist Makefile README src/part1.c src/part2.c \ > obj.o build/lib.so && > test_paths_are_missing a.out src/part3.c > > I dunno. Alternately, update test_path_foo() functions to accept multiple pathnames, or is that too ugly? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html