test_must_be_empty: simplify file existence check
PATCH 1/1 test_must_be_empty: simplify file existence check
Commit ea3c87d0b7 (test_must_be_empty: make sure the file exists, not just empty, 2018-02-27) basically duplicated the 'test_path_is_file' helper function in 'test_must_be_empty'.
Just call 'test_path_is_file' to avoid this code duplication.
--- t/test-lib-functions.sh | 7 ++----- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
t/test-lib-functions.sh +2 -5
@@ -718,11 +718,8 @@ verbose () { # otherwise. test_must_be_empty () { - if ! test -f "$1" - then - echo "'$1' is missing" - return 1 - elif test -s "$1" + test_path_is_file "$1" && + if test -s "$1" then echo "'$1' is not empty, it contains:" cat "$1"
Signature · 1 line
2.17.0.rc1.145.gfac1bf9500
Quoted 5 lines · SZEDER Gábor
Commit
ea3c87d0b7(test_must_be_empty: make sure the file exists, not just empty, 2018-02-27) basically duplicated the 'test_path_is_file' helper function in 'test_must_be_empty'.Just call '
test_path_is_file' to avoid this code duplication.
This looks like an improvement to me.
I think you meant to reference 11395a3b4b16d9fc637ca2e41a6892ea2e6289ce, though (I don't have ea3c87d0b7 at all).
-Peff
Quoted 6 lines · Jeff King
Quoted 4 lines · SZEDER Gábor
Commit
ea3c87d0b7(test_must_be_empty: make sure the file exists, not just empty, 2018-02-27) basically duplicated the 'test_path_is_file' helper function in 'test_must_be_empty'.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Just call '
test_path_is_file' to avoid this code duplication.This looks like an improvement to me.
I think you meant to reference
11395a3b4b16d9fc637ca2e41a6892ea2e6289ce, though (I don't haveea3c87d0b7at all).
Indeed. I remember picking up that patch from the mailing list, which then became ea3c87d0b7 in my repo. What I don't remember is how I managed to build on top of this hand-picked commit instead of what has been in git.git for a month...
PATCH v2 1/1 test_must_be_empty: simplify file existence check
In reply to Jeff KingCommit 11395a3b4b (test_must_be_empty: make sure the file exists, not just empty, 2018-02-27) basically duplicated the 'test_path_is_file' helper function in 'test_must_be_empty'.
Just call 'test_path_is_file' to avoid this code duplication.
---
The only change is to refer to the right commit in the log message.
t/test-lib-functions.sh | 7 ++----- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
t/test-lib-functions.sh +2 -5
@@ -718,11 +718,8 @@ verbose () { # otherwise. test_must_be_empty () { - if ! test -f "$1" - then - echo "'$1' is missing" - return 1 - elif test -s "$1" + test_path_is_file "$1" && + if test -s "$1" then echo "'$1' is not empty, it contains:" cat "$1"
Signature · 1 line
2.17.0.rc1.148.gc92dc354c5
Quoted 22 lines · SZEDER Gábor
Commit
11395a3b4b(test_must_be_empty: make sure the file exists, not just empty, 2018-02-27) basically duplicated the 'test_path_is_file' helper function in 'test_must_be_empty'.Just call '
test_path_is_file' to avoid this code duplication.Signed-off-by SZEDER Gábor <[email protected]>---
The only change is to refer to the right commit in the log message.
t/test-lib-functions.sh | 7 ++----- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)t/test-lib-functions.sh +0
-0@@ -718,11 +718,8 @@ verbose () { # otherwise. test_must_be_empty () {
t/test-lib-functions.sh verbose () { · line 725
Quoted 10 lines
t/test-lib-functions.sh +2
-5- if ! test -f "$1" - then - echo "'$1' is missing" - return 1 - elif test -s "$1" + test_path_is_file "$1" && + if test -s "$1" then echo "'$1' is not empty, it contains:" cat "$1"
"Just call it" is fine as an idea but
A && if B then ... fi
is somewhat questionable. Shouldn't we make it
if A && B then ... fi
instead? That way, if we ever need to add an else clause, the logic flow would be more obvious, no?
Quoted 20 lines · Junio C Hamano
t/test-lib-functions.sh verbose () { · line 725
Quoted 11 lines
test_must_be_empty() {t/test-lib-functions.sh +2
-5- if ! test -f "$1" - then - echo "'$1' is missing" - return 1 - elif test -s "$1" + test_path_is_file "$1" && + if test -s "$1" then echo "'$1' is not empty, it contains:" cat "$1""Just call it" is fine as an idea but
A && if B then ... fi
Quoted 8 lines
is somewhat questionable. Shouldn't we make it
if A && B then ... fiinstead?
Nah, you want to treat A's success as a condition *not* to enter the "then" clause in this case, so my rewrite is bogus. SOrry for the noise.