From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 13:43:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] t/pack-refs-tests: use test_path_is_missing
Message-ID: <87jyv1jqb9.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <20260324044619.43944-1-jayeshdaga99@gmail.com>

jayesh0104 <jayeshdaga99@gmail.com> writes:

> Replace the raw file existence check:
>
>     ! test -f .git/refs/heads/f
>
> with the Git test helper:
>
>     test_path_is_missing .git/refs/heads/f
>
> This aligns the test with Git’s testing conventions and avoids
> direct use of shell test constructs.

That makes it sound like "avoiding direct use" is a goal on its own.
Adhering to the conventions is good, but the ultimate reason is
something else, isn't it?

> v3:
> - Fix commit message to accurately describe the change

The above two lines plus a blank line should come below the three
dash line ...

> Signed-off-by: jayesh0104 <jayeshdaga99@gmail.com>
> ---

... and placed here.  After getting committed, "git log" readers
are not interested in learning how many wrong turns you took or what
mistake you made until you finally got to an acceptable patch.

The name of the game is to pretend as if you were a perfect
developer ;-).

>  t/pack-refs-tests.sh | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/pack-refs-tests.sh b/t/pack-refs-tests.sh
> index 2fdaccb6c7..4a85d96c6b 100644
> --- a/t/pack-refs-tests.sh
> +++ b/t/pack-refs-tests.sh
> @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ test_expect_success 'see if a branch still exists after git ${pack_refs} --prune
>  test_expect_success 'see if git ${pack_refs} --prune remove ref files' '
>  	git branch f &&
>  	git ${pack_refs} --all --prune &&
> -	! test -f .git/refs/heads/f
> +	test_path_is_missing .git/refs/heads/f
>  '
>  
>  test_expect_success 'see if git ${pack_refs} --prune removes empty dirs' '