Re: [PATCH 1/3] test functions: Add new function `test_file_not_empty`

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 3, 2019, 13:20 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq5zt014du.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190303122842.30380-2-rohit.ashiwal265@gmail.com>

Rohit Ashiwal <rohit.ashiwal265@gmail.com> writes:

> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] test functions: Add new function `test_file_not_empty`

s/Add/add/. Strictly speaking, you do not need to say "new", if you are already saying "add", then that's redundant.

Show 21 quoted lines

> test-lib-functions: add a helper function that checks for a file and that
> the file is not empty. The helper function will provide better error message
> in case of failure and improve readability
>
> Signed-off-by: Rohit Ashiwal <rohit.ashiwal265@gmail.com>
> ---
>  t/test-lib-functions.sh | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/t/test-lib-functions.sh b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
> index 80402a428f..1302df63b6 100644
> --- a/t/test-lib-functions.sh
> +++ b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
> @@ -593,6 +593,16 @@ test_dir_is_empty () {
>  	fi
>  }
>  
> +# Check if the file exists and has a size greater than zero
> +test_file_not_empty () {
> +	test_path_is_file "$1" &&
> +	if ! test -s "$1"

"test -s <path>" is true if <path> resolves to an existing directory entry for a file that has a size greater than zero. Isn't it redundant and wasteful to have test_path_is_file before it, or is there a situation where "test -s" alone won't give us what we want to check?

Show 9 quoted lines

> +	then
> +		echo "'$1' is an empty file."
> +		false
> +	fi
> +}
> +
>  test_path_is_missing () {
>  	if test -e "$1"
>  	then