Web lists-archives.com

Re: Do test-path_is_{file,dir,exists} make sense anymore with -x?




On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 05:10:30PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> However. I wonder in general if we've re-visited the utility of these
> wrappers and maybe other similar wrappers after -x was added.

> But 4 years after this was added in a136f6d8ff ("test-lib.sh: support -x
> option for shell-tracing", 2014-10-10) we got -x, and then with "-i -v -x":

'-x' tracing doesn't work in all test scripts, unless it is run with a
Bash version already supporting BASH_XTRACEFD, i.e. v4.1 or later.
Notably the default Bash shipped in macOS is somewhere around v3.2.

> And at least to me whenever I have a test failure the first thing I do
> is try with -x (if I wasn't already using it). Under that the wrapper
> output is more verbose and no more helpful. It's immediately clear
> what's going on with:
> 
>     + test -f doesnotexist
>     error: last command exited with $?=1
> 
> Whereas:
> 
>     + test -f doesnotexist
>     + echo File doesnotexist doesn't exist.
>     File doesnotexist doesn't exist.
>     + false
>     error: last command exited with $?=1
> 
> Gives me the same thing, but I have to read 5 lines instead of 2 that
> ultimately don't tell me any more (and a bit of "huh, 'false' returned
> 1? Of course! Oh! It's faking things up and it's the 'echo' that
> matters...").

I didn't find this to be an issue, but because of functions like
'test_seq' and 'test_must_fail' I've thought about suppressing '-x'
output for test helpers (haven't actually done anything about it,
though).

> Looking over test-lib-functions.sh this patch would do it. I couldn't
> spot any other functions redundant to -x:
> 
>     diff --git a/t/test-lib-functions.sh b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
>     index 80402a428f..b3a95b4968 100644
>     --- a/t/test-lib-functions.sh
>     +++ b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
>     @@ -555,33 +555,6 @@ test_external_without_stderr () {
>      	fi
>      }
> 
>     -# debugging-friendly alternatives to "test [-f|-d|-e]"
>     -# The commands test the existence or non-existence of $1. $2 can be
>     -# given to provide a more precise diagnosis.

Note the second parameter; though, of course, you could argue that we
use it so rarely that it wouldn't really be missed.

>     -test_path_is_file () {
>     -	if ! test -f "$1"
>     -	then
>     -		echo "File $1 doesn't exist. $2"
>     -		false
>     -	fi
>     -}
>     -
>     -test_path_is_dir () {
>     -	if ! test -d "$1"
>     -	then
>     -		echo "Directory $1 doesn't exist. $2"
>     -		false
>     -	fi
>     -}
>     -
>     -test_path_exists () {
>     -	if ! test -e "$1"
>     -	then
>     -		echo "Path $1 doesn't exist. $2"
>     -		false
>     -	fi
>     -}
>     -
>      # Check if the directory exists and is empty as expected, barf otherwise.
>      test_dir_is_empty () {
>      	test_path_is_dir "$1" &&
>     @@ -593,19 +566,6 @@ test_dir_is_empty () {
>      	fi
>      }
> 
>     -test_path_is_missing () {
>     -	if test -e "$1"
>     -	then
>     -		echo "Path exists:"
>     -		ls -ld "$1"

This 'ls' command gives a bit of additional info.

>     -		if test $# -ge 1
>     -		then
>     -			echo "$*"
>     -		fi
>     -		false
>     -	fi
>     -}
>     -
>      # test_line_count checks that a file has the number of lines it
>      # ought to. For example:
>      #
>     @@ -849,6 +809,9 @@ verbose () {
>      # otherwise.
> 
>      test_must_be_empty () {
>     +	# We don't want to remove this as noted in ec10b018e7 ("tests:
>     +	# use 'test_must_be_empty' instead of '! test -s'",
>     +	# 2018-08-19)

Indeed.

>      	test_path_is_file "$1" &&

This still uses 'test_path_is_file'.

>      	if test -s "$1"
>      	then