From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9A8F7BAFD for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:50:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709589046; cv=none; b=Kup9xxUe2Z2gcKrFiCGbgScF6vbF07H+Y6A06a69D2Nnz+WLEgOnha+5BNEhTO3fIzwG40PEwWh0AN8YuJI11drTM4Ajb9VOg9TJ6i+sZHeihv0/J+jHdlZrB8x1N+NbT+pho76xj7VzzR2OwfmFMZC5/KDozXlCk1PCqDgMdOg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709589046; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5A2KKCjQqcewnB6wuSbZ+bw68enTpaiBfPu44HWtJIA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=NeXnb5tUhejU1kVVpXhSGGTw6IAeEFpKJkr+JVEVTA8VJtNeNlYi2OrOwW1Pc5/aLEU5iWedoS5o+mUjUwGI0dfhoClfesNdkZDeEnIcE2ycfsb3gVmqd0i39b86Qmtcc7O/DUQtrg9aqu95T271kCVb1oYqE6cRBTfmXCibwU4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=io5FBMTR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="io5FBMTR" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61601F4C61; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 16:50:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=5A2KKCjQqcewnB6wuSbZ+bw68enTpaiBfPu44H WtJIA=; b=io5FBMTR6DAbLpi1cdzilbq7UbLpclvb+mdPaUn2ugIxymKuKEy+Kb 93lBa1W84lpYZ7ycWSvwYt6L8OROqVCjSF+zUkQ+48LLh8KsSBUtJASUWoSgqHxO FDuX2GI4NAIJlr19WBq5G9CReuE9AnZDXOstOlegn/P/N29S09cvY= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE191F4C60; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 16:50:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.176.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B2801F4C5F; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 16:50:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Vincenzo Mezzela Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GSOC][PATCH v3 1/1] t7301: use test_path_is_(missing|file) In-Reply-To: <20240304171732.64457-2-vincenzo.mezzela@gmail.com> (Vincenzo Mezzela's message of "Mon, 4 Mar 2024 18:17:32 +0100") References: <20240227161734.52830-1-vincenzo.mezzela@gmail.com> <20240304171732.64457-1-vincenzo.mezzela@gmail.com> <20240304171732.64457-2-vincenzo.mezzela@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 13:50:41 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3FBE03E0-DA71-11EE-A695-25B3960A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Vincenzo Mezzela writes: > Refactor test -f to utilize the corresponding helper functions from As Eric pointed out to another GSoC applicant in a different thread, this is not refactoring any code, so saying "refactor" is a bit misleading. Replace use of "test -f" with the "test_path_is_file" helper function ... > test-lib-functions.sh. These functions perform identical operations > while enhancing debugging capabilities in case of test failures. > > In the context of this file, 'test ! -f' is meant to check if the file > has been correctly cleaned, thus its usage is replaced with > 'test_path_is_missing' instead of '! test_path_is_file'. In other words, the original used "test ! -f" when it meant to say "test ! -e", and test_path_is_missing would be a correct replacement? If so that makes sense.