[GSOC][RFC] microproject: use test_path_is_* functions in test scripts

Hello everyone,

I'm Vincenzo, a Master's degree student in Computer Engineering and Cybersecurity.

As I'm approaching the end of my academic journey, I'm eager to contribute to the Git project and the GSoC represents a good opportunity to do so. Upon exploring the online documentation of git for the application to the GSoC I'm keen to begin the required microproject.

Among the microproject proposed here https://git.github.io/SoC-2024-Microprojects/ , I would like to work on replacing 'test -(e|f|g|...)' with test_path_is* .

Can you confirm if this task has already been taken by someone else?

Approach:

As far as I understood, The work consists in replacing the shell 'test' command in the test script under 't/' directory with the ones present in the t/test_lib_functions.sh as follows:

- test -f --> test_path_is_file

- test -d --> test_path_is_dir

- test -e --> test_path_exists

To approximately measure the number of required replacement, I run the following commands from the 't/' directory (branch master):

 > git grep -r 'test -[efdx]' 2>/dev/null| awk '{print $1}' | uniq -c | 
sort -n -r

 >>
 > # Number of replacements
 > git grep -r 'test -[efdx]' 2>/dev/null| awk '{print $1}' | uniq -c | 
sort -n -r | awk '{sum += $1} END {print sum}'
 >> 853
 > # Number of files that requires a patch
 > git grep -r 'test -[efdx]' 2>/dev/null| awk '{print $1}' | uniq -c | 
wc -l
 >> 169

Although the replacement work might not be difficult, it spans over many different test files. Do you want me to submit a patch for each of them as part of the microproject? If not, How many patches do you expect me to submit?

Thanks, Vincenzo

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:10 PM Vincenzo MEZZELA <vincenzo.mezzela@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for your interest in working on Git!

This is a generic microproject so even if someone else is working on this microproject, you can also work on it as long as you don't work on the same file as that person.

Note that you only need to do that replacement in one test script under the 't/' directory.

We would like a single patch that performs the necessary replacements in a single file.

For reference in https://git.github.io/General-Microproject-Information/ we say:

"Change only a few files"

and

"This means that for a microproject that consists in refactoring or rewriting a small amount of code, your patch should change only ONE file, or perhaps 2 files if they are closely related, like “foo.c” and “foo.h”."

Thanks, Christian.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:36 PM Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:

This particular test script is being tackled by someone else on the list presently, so probably best to choose one of the others.

Vincenzo MEZZELA <vincenzo.mezzela@gmail.com> writes:

One thing to note is that you'd need to make sure if "test -e" for example originally written really means "we want to see something there and it does not matter if it is a file or a directory" while turning it into test_path_exists. The operations that such a test follows may be expected to create a file and never a directory, in which case the condition the original code is testing may need to be corrected first to expect a more specific type (e.g. "test -f"). The same comment applies for the other two.

Some tests check with "! test -f <path>", which often would want to be turned into "test_path_is_missing", but you'd need to make sure that is what the original test really meant to do.

A microproject is not about "doing the real work to help the project". It is a practice session to come up with a set of small changes and explain them well, to send the result to the list to get reviewed, to respond to reviews and possibly send updates, and to repeat the cycle until completion. So most likely you'd pick a single file or two and do the above conversion, while leaving the others as practice material for other GSoC participants.

Enjoy.

Thanks for this clarification!

I'd have changed them into:
-  ! test -f <path> --> ! test_path_is_file <path>
-  ! test -e <path> --> test_path_is_missing <path>
Since '! test -f <path>' and 'test_path_is_missing <path>' can return
different values.

But as you said, I'll check what they are really meant to do and modify them accordingly :)

Thanks for this clarification too. :)

Vincenzo