Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 7:05 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Mahendra Dani <danimahendra0904@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> > remove_object() {
>> >> > file=$(sha1_file "$*") &&
>> >> > - test -e "$file" &&
>> >> > + test_path_exists "$file" &&
>> >> > rm -f "$file"
>> >> > } &&
> That's a good question to ask, but isn't the implied suggestion of
> dropping "-f" going in the wrong direction? If I'm reading
> remove_object() correctly, `test -e` is being used as control flow,
> *not* as an assertion that the file exists.
If sha1_file says the loose object must be at path $file, and the
call to test -e "$file" returns false, two things happen in this
function:
(1) control stops and "rm -f" does not trigger
(2) the function returns non-zero status to the caller
If you omit the check and say rm "$file" instead, under the same
scenario, (1) "rm" is attempted, but there is nothing to remove so
the command returns non-zero status, and (2) the function returns
that non-zero status to the caller
If the file does exist, both will remove the file, and give the
caller zero status return.
So?
