Hi, I am still a bit confused about the task itself
it’s just text replacing for example: t1400-update-ref.sh , line 194 -> `test_path_is_missing` has to be ‘test_path_is_file’
Thanks
threads / discuss / 50823
[GSoC] microporject test_path_is_*
Subject: [GSoC] microporject test_path_is_*
Elijah NewrenRe: [GSoC] microporject test_path_is_*
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 2:10 PM Mooga <contact@m-mooga.com> wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> > Hi, > I am still a bit confused about the task itself > > it’s just text replacing for example: > t1400-update-ref.sh , line 194 -> `test_path_is_missing` has to be ‘test_path_is_file’ > > Thanks
There are several places in the code that use test with -e or -f or -d (or -h or...) in order to check for the presence of a file/directory/symlink/etc. For example, test -f path1/file1 This could be made more clear and produce nicer error messages if it were instead test_path_is_file path1/file1
There are likewise several that use one of ! test -e path/to/filename or ! test -f path/to/filename or test ! -f path/to/filename which could be replaced by test_path_is_missing path/to/filename
This GSoC microproject is just about picking one testfile that has some of these constructs, and fixing the cases found within that testfile.
Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonRe: [GSoC] microporject test_path_is_*
On Tue, Mar 26 2019, Elijah Newren wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 2:10 PM Mooga <contact@m-mooga.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I am still a bit confused about the task itself >> >> it’s just text replacing for example: >> t1400-update-ref.sh , line 194 -> `test_path_is_missing` has to be ‘test_path_is_file’ >> >> Thanks > > There are several places in the code that use test with -e or -f or -d > (or -h or...) in order to check for the presence of a > file/directory/symlink/etc. For example, > test -f path1/file1 > This could be made more clear and produce nicer error messages if it > were instead > test_path_is_file path1/file1
See also the recent thread I started https://public-inbox.org/git/87sgwav8cp.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/ asking if these wrappers were useless now. The consensus was to keep them (a bunch of use-cases I didn't know about). Useful if you're poking at them and wondering why we're using this / what it gives us.
Show 8 quoted lines
> There are likewise several that use one of > ! test -e path/to/filename > or > ! test -f path/to/filename > or > test ! -f path/to/filename > which could be replaced by > test_path_is_missing path/to/filename
Interesting that for some we use the 'test_is_there/test_is_not_there' pattern and for others 'test_is_there [!]'. E.g test_path_exist/test_path_is_missing v.s. test_i18ngrep.
> This GSoC microproject is just about picking one testfile that has > some of these constructs, and fixing the cases found within that > testfile.
SZEDER GáborRe: [GSoC] microporject test_path_is_*
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:09:18AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> > There are likewise several that use one of > > ! test -e path/to/filename > > or > > ! test -f path/to/filename > > or > > test ! -f path/to/filename > > which could be replaced by > > test_path_is_missing path/to/filename > > Interesting that for some we use the 'test_is_there/test_is_not_there' > pattern and for others 'test_is_there [!]'. E.g > test_path_exist/test_path_is_missing v.s. test_i18ngrep.
It's unclear what the '!' should negate in case of 'test_path_is_file ! file'. What if 'file' does exists, but it's not a file but a directory, socket, fifo, or symlink? 'test ! -f file' returns success in these cases as well.
OTOH, it's quite clear what the negation should mean in case of 'test_i18ngrep'.
Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonRe: [GSoC] microporject test_path_is_*
On Wed, Mar 27 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:09:18AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> > There are likewise several that use one of >> > ! test -e path/to/filename >> > or >> > ! test -f path/to/filename >> > or >> > test ! -f path/to/filename >> > which could be replaced by >> > test_path_is_missing path/to/filename >> >> Interesting that for some we use the 'test_is_there/test_is_not_there' >> pattern and for others 'test_is_there [!]'. E.g >> test_path_exist/test_path_is_missing v.s. test_i18ngrep. > > It's unclear what the '!' should negate in case of 'test_path_is_file > ! file'. What if 'file' does exists, but it's not a file but a > directory, socket, fifo, or symlink? 'test ! -f file' returns success > in these cases as well. > > OTOH, it's quite clear what the negation should mean in case of > 'test_i18ngrep'.
*Should* we make it better? Yeah sure, maybe. I'm just pointing out for context to someone poking at this for the first time that now we sometimes do "! foo <arg>" v.s. "foo <arg>" as "foo_is <arg>" and "foo_not <arg>" and other times "foo [!] <arg>".
So yeah, maybe we should improve things to disambiguate the cases you mentioned, but right now e.g. "test_path_exists" and "test_path_is_missing" are just "test -e" and "! test -e", respectively.
The same caveats you've mentioned also apply to "test_i18ngrep" b.t.w., there we squash the 3x standard exit codes of grep[1] into a boolean, and thus e.g. ignore the difference between <file> not matching an <file> being a directory or whatever.
1. http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/grep.html
SZEDER GáborRe: [GSoC] microporject test_path_is_*
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:21:55PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Show 33 quoted lines
> > On Wed, Mar 27 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:09:18AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> > There are likewise several that use one of > >> > ! test -e path/to/filename > >> > or > >> > ! test -f path/to/filename > >> > or > >> > test ! -f path/to/filename > >> > which could be replaced by > >> > test_path_is_missing path/to/filename > >> > >> Interesting that for some we use the 'test_is_there/test_is_not_there' > >> pattern and for others 'test_is_there [!]'. E.g > >> test_path_exist/test_path_is_missing v.s. test_i18ngrep. > > > > It's unclear what the '!' should negate in case of 'test_path_is_file > > ! file'. What if 'file' does exists, but it's not a file but a > > directory, socket, fifo, or symlink? 'test ! -f file' returns success > > in these cases as well. > > > > OTOH, it's quite clear what the negation should mean in case of > > 'test_i18ngrep'. > > *Should* we make it better? Yeah sure, maybe. I'm just pointing out for > context to someone poking at this for the first time that now we > sometimes do "! foo <arg>" v.s. "foo <arg>" as "foo_is <arg>" and > "foo_not <arg>" and other times "foo [!] <arg>". > > So yeah, maybe we should improve things to disambiguate the cases you > mentioned, but right now e.g. "test_path_exists" and > "test_path_is_missing" are just "test -e" and "! test -e", respectively.
I'm not sure why 'test_path_exists' exists, as I don't readily see a valid reason why a test should only be interested in whether the path exists, but but not whether it's a file or a directory. Luckily it haven't caught on, and it's only used twice in the whole test suite.
However, as shown above, the existend of 'test_path_is_missing' is very much justified.
> The same caveats you've mentioned also apply to "test_i18ngrep" b.t.w., > there we squash the 3x standard exit codes of grep[1] into a boolean, > and thus e.g. ignore the difference between <file> not matching an > <file> being a directory or whatever.
I'm not sure I understand, 'test_i18ngrep' handles the missing file or not a file cases reasonably well:
expecting success:
test_i18ngrep ! foo nonexistent-file
error: bug in the test script: test_i18ngrep requires a file to read as the last parameteror
expecting success:
mkdir dir &&
test_i18ngrep ! foo dir
error: bug in the test script: test_i18ngrep requires a file to read as the last parameter> > 1. http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/grep.html
Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonRe: [GSoC] microporject test_path_is_*
On Wed, Mar 27 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
Show 38 quoted lines
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:21:55PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 27 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:09:18AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> >> > There are likewise several that use one of >> >> > ! test -e path/to/filename >> >> > or >> >> > ! test -f path/to/filename >> >> > or >> >> > test ! -f path/to/filename >> >> > which could be replaced by >> >> > test_path_is_missing path/to/filename >> >> >> >> Interesting that for some we use the 'test_is_there/test_is_not_there' >> >> pattern and for others 'test_is_there [!]'. E.g >> >> test_path_exist/test_path_is_missing v.s. test_i18ngrep. >> > >> > It's unclear what the '!' should negate in case of 'test_path_is_file >> > ! file'. What if 'file' does exists, but it's not a file but a >> > directory, socket, fifo, or symlink? 'test ! -f file' returns success >> > in these cases as well. >> > >> > OTOH, it's quite clear what the negation should mean in case of >> > 'test_i18ngrep'. >> >> *Should* we make it better? Yeah sure, maybe. I'm just pointing out for >> context to someone poking at this for the first time that now we >> sometimes do "! foo <arg>" v.s. "foo <arg>" as "foo_is <arg>" and >> "foo_not <arg>" and other times "foo [!] <arg>". >> >> So yeah, maybe we should improve things to disambiguate the cases you >> mentioned, but right now e.g. "test_path_exists" and >> "test_path_is_missing" are just "test -e" and "! test -e", respectively. > > I'm not sure why 'test_path_exists' exists, as I don't readily see a > valid reason why a test should only be interested in whether the path > exists, but but not whether it's a file or a directory.
In the general case the same reason we use "test -e". While the test would pass in all sorts of unexpected cases, those probably aren't plausible and we're just e.g. checking "did the thing create a file it'll create in XYZ mode?"....
> Luckily it > haven't caught on, and it's only used twice in the whole test suite.
Well, we have some >100 "test -e" though ... :)
Show 23 quoted lines
> However, as shown above, the existend of 'test_path_is_missing' is > very much justified. > >> The same caveats you've mentioned also apply to "test_i18ngrep" b.t.w., >> there we squash the 3x standard exit codes of grep[1] into a boolean, >> and thus e.g. ignore the difference between <file> not matching an >> <file> being a directory or whatever. > > I'm not sure I understand, 'test_i18ngrep' handles the missing file or > not a file cases reasonably well: > > expecting success: > test_i18ngrep ! foo nonexistent-file > > error: bug in the test script: test_i18ngrep requires a file to read as the last parameter > > or > > expecting success: > mkdir dir && > test_i18ngrep ! foo dir > > error: bug in the test script: test_i18ngrep requires a file to read as the last parameter
Yeah you're right, I didn't read it carefully enough and it does handle *that* particular case, but e.g. a grep of "file" where we can't read it due to a permission error is the same as "didn't contain the string".
I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but the opposite. We assume a certain base level of sanity, e.g. we do "test_must_fail <cmd>" only for git, but "! <cmd>" for everything else, even though e.g. the system "grep" may be segfaulting.
>> >> 1. http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/grep.html
SZEDER GáborRe: [GSoC] microporject test_path_is_*
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 03:10:42PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Show 46 quoted lines
> > On Wed, Mar 27 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:21:55PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 27 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:09:18AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> >> > There are likewise several that use one of > >> >> > ! test -e path/to/filename > >> >> > or > >> >> > ! test -f path/to/filename > >> >> > or > >> >> > test ! -f path/to/filename > >> >> > which could be replaced by > >> >> > test_path_is_missing path/to/filename > >> >> > >> >> Interesting that for some we use the 'test_is_there/test_is_not_there' > >> >> pattern and for others 'test_is_there [!]'. E.g > >> >> test_path_exist/test_path_is_missing v.s. test_i18ngrep. > >> > > >> > It's unclear what the '!' should negate in case of 'test_path_is_file > >> > ! file'. What if 'file' does exists, but it's not a file but a > >> > directory, socket, fifo, or symlink? 'test ! -f file' returns success > >> > in these cases as well. > >> > > >> > OTOH, it's quite clear what the negation should mean in case of > >> > 'test_i18ngrep'. > >> > >> *Should* we make it better? Yeah sure, maybe. I'm just pointing out for > >> context to someone poking at this for the first time that now we > >> sometimes do "! foo <arg>" v.s. "foo <arg>" as "foo_is <arg>" and > >> "foo_not <arg>" and other times "foo [!] <arg>". > >> > >> So yeah, maybe we should improve things to disambiguate the cases you > >> mentioned, but right now e.g. "test_path_exists" and > >> "test_path_is_missing" are just "test -e" and "! test -e", respectively. > > > > I'm not sure why 'test_path_exists' exists, as I don't readily see a > > valid reason why a test should only be interested in whether the path > > exists, but but not whether it's a file or a directory. > > In the general case the same reason we use "test -e". While the test > would pass in all sorts of unexpected cases, those probably aren't > plausible and we're just e.g. checking "did the thing create a file > it'll create in XYZ mode?"....
When I look at a test using 'test -e' I can't readily tell what that reason might have been, i.e. whether there really was a compelling reason for using 'test -e' instead of 'test -(f|d|...), or the dev writing the test was just "meh, we could let it slide".
> > Luckily it > > haven't caught on, and it's only used twice in the whole test suite. > > Well, we have some >100 "test -e" though ... :)
Hopefully they will be turned into 'test_path_is_file' or 'test_path_is_dir' instead of 'test_path_exists'... eventually, maybe a decade or two worth of GSOC microprojects later... :)
Show 32 quoted lines
> > However, as shown above, the existend of 'test_path_is_missing' is > > very much justified. > > > >> The same caveats you've mentioned also apply to "test_i18ngrep" b.t.w., > >> there we squash the 3x standard exit codes of grep[1] into a boolean, > >> and thus e.g. ignore the difference between <file> not matching an > >> <file> being a directory or whatever. > > > > I'm not sure I understand, 'test_i18ngrep' handles the missing file or > > not a file cases reasonably well: > > > > expecting success: > > test_i18ngrep ! foo nonexistent-file > > > > error: bug in the test script: test_i18ngrep requires a file to read as the last parameter > > > > or > > > > expecting success: > > mkdir dir && > > test_i18ngrep ! foo dir > > > > error: bug in the test script: test_i18ngrep requires a file to read as the last parameter > > Yeah you're right, I didn't read it carefully enough and it does handle > *that* particular case, but e.g. a grep of "file" where we can't read it > due to a permission error is the same as "didn't contain the string". > > I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but the opposite. We assume a certain > base level of sanity, e.g. we do "test_must_fail <cmd>" only for git, > but "! <cmd>" for everything else, even though e.g. the system "grep" > may be segfaulting.
That's kind of the point: this is not about the sanity of the system, but rather about the sanity of the developers :)
'test_i18ngrep' does handle that particular case, because, unfortunately, paths do get misspelled (or downright forgotten!) every now and then, but 'test_expect_failure', '! cmd', a pipe downstream, or some other circumstances can still hide those errors. I fixed several issues with bogus filenames in the past.
However, since we assume that the system we are testing on is sane, there is indeed not much point in preparing for cases that could only go wrong if the system was not sane, e.g. the lack of permissions to read a just written file. I don't recall that we had any such permission-related issues in the past (but I didn't actually check). Having said that, I agree that checking whether 'grep' exited with 2 would have been more robust.
And these are the cases where using test helper functions that know about the negation like 'test_path_is_missing', 'test_must_be_empty', or 'test_i18ngrep !' instead of '! test -(f|d|s|...)' etc. starts to pay off, as they can protect us from our own mistakes. Case in point: the last remaining '! test -s' in our test suite is definitely wrong.
So I think if such a helper function is available, then we should use it, and we might want to consider adding even more, e.g. we have a couple of instances of '! test_cmp', '! has_cr'. And these functions don't have to be perfect and catch every case that could possibly go wrong, they just need to do a reasonably good job at catching those cases that would be our own fault if they were to go wrong.
> >> 1. http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/grep.html
Re: [GSoC] microporject test_path_is_*
So for example that is git diff
diff --git a/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh b/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh index 286bba35d8..fc82965a0f 100755 --- a/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh +++ b/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ test_expect_success '"add" worktree' ' test_expect_success '"add" worktree with lock' ' git rev-parse HEAD >expect && git worktree add --detach --lock here-with-lock master && - test -f .git/worktrees/here-with-lock/locked + test_path_is_file .git/worktrees/here-with-lock/locked On 26.03.19, 23:07, "Elijah Newren" <git-owner@vger.kernel.org on behalf of newren@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 2:10 PM Mooga <contact@m-mooga.com> wrote: > > Hi, > I am still a bit confused about the task itself > > it’s just text replacing for example: > t1400-update-ref.sh , line 194 -> `test_path_is_missing` has to be ‘test_path_is_file’ > > Thanks There are several places in the code that use test with -e or -f or -d (or -h or...) in order to check for the presence of a file/directory/symlink/etc. For example, test -f path1/file1 This could be made more clear and produce nicer error messages if it were instead test_path_is_file path1/file1 There are likewise several that use one of ! test -e path/to/filename or ! test -f path/to/filename or test ! -f path/to/filename which could be replaced by test_path_is_missing path/to/filename This GSoC microproject is just about picking one testfile that has some of these constructs, and fixing the cases found within that testfile.