Re: [GSoC PATCH] t1420-lost-found.sh: use test_path_is_file for error logging

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 5, 2026, 03:24 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq4ip0n3mm.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <20260104161536.45384-1-andchi@fastmail.com>

Andrew Chitester <andchi@fastmail.com> writes:

Show 22 quoted lines

> This test will fail silently without giving any error message. Use
> test_path_is_file in place of test -f to ensure this test errors with a
> message.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Chitester <andchi@fastmail.com>
> ---
>  t/t1420-lost-found.sh | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t1420-lost-found.sh b/t/t1420-lost-found.sh
> index 2fb2f44f02..5fbb1d10ed 100755
> --- a/t/t1420-lost-found.sh
> +++ b/t/t1420-lost-found.sh
> @@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ test_expect_success 'lost and found something' '
>  	git reset --hard HEAD^ &&
>  	git fsck --lost-found &&
>  	test 2 = $(ls .git/lost-found/*/* | wc -l) &&
> -	test -f .git/lost-found/commit/$(cat lost-commit) &&
> -	test -f .git/lost-found/other/$(cat lost-other)
> +	test_path_is_file .git/lost-found/commit/$(cat lost-commit) &&
> +	test_path_is_file .git/lost-found/other/$(cat lost-other)
>  '

Looks correct, but given that what these tests want to ensure is that underneath .git/lost-found there are only these two expected files, I have to wonder if the output of "ls" here is expected to be very stable. I.e. if we rewrote the whole thing to something like ...

	ls .git/lost-found/*/* >actual &&
	cat >expect <<-EOF &&
	.git/lost-found/commit/$(cat lost-commit)
	.git/lost-found/other/$(cat lost-other)
	EOF
	test_cmp expect actual

... would it be a more direct way to say that and is easier to understand to our readers.