Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > One of our proposed microprojects is to convert instances of `test -e` > and related functions to instead use `test_path_exists` or similar. This > conversion is only feasible when `test -e` is not used as part of a > control statement, as the replacement is used to _assert_ a condition > instead of merely testing for it. > > Clarify the microproject's description accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> > --- > SoC-2024-Microprojects.md | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/SoC-2024-Microprojects.md b/SoC-2024-Microprojects.md > index 644c0a6..782441f 100644 > --- a/SoC-2024-Microprojects.md > +++ b/SoC-2024-Microprojects.md > @@ -41,7 +41,10 @@ to search, so that we can remove this microproject idea. > 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. > +functions. Note that this conversion does not directly apply to control > +flow constructs like `if test -e ./path; then ...; fi` because the > +replacements are intended to assert the condition instead of merely > +testing for it. Thanks for picking it up. Of course there is one case in which we should use test_path_* helpers to replace such an if...then...fi construct; e.g., c431a235 (t9146: replace test -d/-e/-f with appropriate test_path_is_* function, 2024-02-14) did exactly that. I am not sure how best to express that in the already crowded description above, though. Rewriting the existing test this way Find one test script that uses 'test [!] -(e|f|d|...)' to assert the presence/absense of files/directories to make the test fail directly with the exit status of such "test" commands, and replace them with the appropriate helper functions like `test_path_is_file`, that give more informative error messages when they fail. would exclude use of "test -e" as a conditional in control statements, so we could mention what c431a235 did as an exception to the rule, perhaps like Note that the above excludes "test -f" and friends used as a condition in control statements such as "if test -e path ...", but as an exception, if such a "if" statement just open-codes what these helpers do, replacing it is warranted. But that does not read very well, even to myself. Sigh.... Thanks.
