Re: [PATCH 1/1] [GSoC][PATCH] t3070: refactor test -e command

> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
> 
> >> @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ match() {
> >>         test_expect_success EXPENSIVE_ON_WINDOWS 'cleanup after previous file test' '
> >> -               if test -e .git/created_test_file
> >> +               if test_path_exists .git/created_test_file
> >>                 then
> >>                         git reset &&
> >
> > ... which _do_ use test_path_exists() within a `test_expect_success`
> > block. However, the changes are still undesirable because, as above,
> > this `test -e` is merely part of the normal control-flow; it's not
> > acting as an assertion, thus test_path_exists() -- which is an
> > assertion -- is not correct.
> >
> > Unfortunately, none of the uses of`test -e` in t3070 are being used as
> > assertions worthy of replacement with test_path_exists(), thus this
> > isn't a good script in which to make such changes.
> 
> It seems that there is a recurring confusion among mentorship
> program applicants that use test_path_* helpers as their practice
> material.  Perhaps the source of the information that suggests it as
> a microproject is poorly phrased and needs to be rewritten to avoid
> misleading them.
> 
> I found one at https://git.github.io/Outreachy-23-Microprojects/,
> which can be one source of such confusion:
> 
>     Find one test script that verifies the presence/absence of
>     files/directories with ‘test -(e|f|d|…)’ and replace them
>     with the appropriate test_path_is_file, test_path_is_dir,
>     etc. helper functions.
> 
> but there may be others.
> 
> This task specification does not differenciate "test -[efdx]" used
> as a conditional of a control flow statement (which should never be
> replaced by test_path_* helpers) and those used to directly fail the
> &&-chain in test_expect_success with their exit status (which is the
> target that test_path_* helpers are meant to improve).