Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ match() {
>> test_expect_success EXPENSIVE_ON_WINDOWS 'cleanup after previous file test' '
>> - if test -e .git/created_test_file
>> + if test_path_exists .git/created_test_file
>> then
>> git reset &&
>
> ... which _do_ use test_path_exists() within a `test_expect_success`
> block. However, the changes are still undesirable because, as above,
> this `test -e` is merely part of the normal control-flow; it's not
> acting as an assertion, thus test_path_exists() -- which is an
> assertion -- is not correct.
>
> Unfortunately, none of the uses of`test -e` in t3070 are being used as
> assertions worthy of replacement with test_path_exists(), thus this
> isn't a good script in which to make such changes.
It seems that there is a recurring confusion among mentorship
program applicants that use test_path_* helpers as their practice
material. Perhaps the source of the information that suggests it as
a microproject is poorly phrased and needs to be rewritten to avoid
misleading them.
I found one at https://git.github.io/Outreachy-23-Microprojects/,
which can be one source of such confusion:
Find one test script that verifies the presence/absence of
files/directories with ‘test -(e|f|d|…)’ and replace them
with the appropriate test_path_is_file, test_path_is_dir,
etc. helper functions.
but there may be others.
This task specification does not differenciate "test -[efdx]" used
as a conditional of a control flow statement (which should never be
replaced by test_path_* helpers) and those used to directly fail the
&&-chain in test_expect_success with their exit status (which is the
target that test_path_* helpers are meant to improve).
