Re: [GSoC] microporject test_path_is_*
From: SZEDER Gábor <hidden>
Date: 2019-03-27 12:14:18
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:21:55PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:quoted
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:09:18AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:quoted
quoted
There are likewise several that use one of ! test -e path/to/filename or ! test -f path/to/filename or test ! -f path/to/filename which could be replaced by test_path_is_missing path/to/filenameInteresting that for some we use the 'test_is_there/test_is_not_there' pattern and for others 'test_is_there [!]'. E.g test_path_exist/test_path_is_missing v.s. test_i18ngrep.It's unclear what the '!' should negate in case of 'test_path_is_file ! file'. What if 'file' does exists, but it's not a file but a directory, socket, fifo, or symlink? 'test ! -f file' returns success in these cases as well. OTOH, it's quite clear what the negation should mean in case of 'test_i18ngrep'.*Should* we make it better? Yeah sure, maybe. I'm just pointing out for context to someone poking at this for the first time that now we sometimes do "! foo <arg>" v.s. "foo <arg>" as "foo_is <arg>" and "foo_not <arg>" and other times "foo [!] <arg>". So yeah, maybe we should improve things to disambiguate the cases you mentioned, but right now e.g. "test_path_exists" and "test_path_is_missing" are just "test -e" and "! test -e", respectively.
I'm not sure why 'test_path_exists' exists, as I don't readily see a valid reason why a test should only be interested in whether the path exists, but but not whether it's a file or a directory. Luckily it haven't caught on, and it's only used twice in the whole test suite. However, as shown above, the existend of 'test_path_is_missing' is very much justified.
The same caveats you've mentioned also apply to "test_i18ngrep" b.t.w., there we squash the 3x standard exit codes of grep[1] into a boolean, and thus e.g. ignore the difference between <file> not matching an <file> being a directory or whatever.
I'm not sure I understand, 'test_i18ngrep' handles the missing file or
not a file cases reasonably well:
expecting success:
test_i18ngrep ! foo nonexistent-file
error: bug in the test script: test_i18ngrep requires a file to read as the last parameter
or
expecting success:
mkdir dir &&
test_i18ngrep ! foo dir
error: bug in the test script: test_i18ngrep requires a file to read as the last parameter
1. http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/grep.html