Re: [PATCH 1/1] t/test-lib: make `test_dir_is_empty` more robust

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Aug 5, 2018, 20:52 UTC
Message-ID: <20180805205231.GA14688@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cQSryjWrFZML_g0fR5oq6dzVaWPXm_4R-Jg_ay1R2DzbQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 01:23:05AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> A simpler approach, without the portability concerns of -A, would be
> to remove the "." and ".." lines from the top of the listing:
> 
>     ls -f1 "$1" | sed '1,2d'
> 
> If we're worried about -f not being sufficiently portable, then an
> even simpler approach would be to check whether the output of 'ls -a1'
> has more lines than the two expected ("." and ".."):
> 
>     test $(ls -a1 "$1" | wc -l) -gt 2
> 
> I think I favor this final implementation over the others.

Perhaps even simpler:

  test "$1" = "$(find "$1")"

That will recurse any subdirectories, possibly wasting time, but since the point is that we expect it to be empty, that's probably OK.

Like Junio said elsewhere, I am not sure if it is even worth caring too much about pathological cases in the test suite, where we control all of the paths. But using `find` does shave off one process invocation, too. :)

-Peff