Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] modernize t7300

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

James [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

@@ -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?