[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Internationalization tests: prefer `test ! -r' over `test !
From: |
Stefano Lattarini |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Internationalization tests: prefer `test ! -r' over `test ! -f' |
Date: |
Mon, 6 Sep 2010 23:01:05 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; ) |
On Monday 06 September 2010, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> > Internationalization tests: prefer `test ! -r' over `test ! -f'
>
> Why? Why is it more important to check that an expected file has
> read permissions, than to check that it is a regular file?
Just in case the file is erroneously created as (say) a directory or
a symlink, a situation `test -f' would not catch.
> This is not an objection. I just find it odd to use 'test -f' for
> the positive test and 'test ! -r' for the negative one.
Because in the positive test we want to make sure the file is created
as a regular file, while in the negative test we want to make sure the
file is not created at all.
That said, with this sentence:
``Why? Why is it more important to check that an expected file has
read permissions, than to check that it is a regular file?''
you have a point IMO. In the long run, it would be better to
define a (say) `file_not_exist' subroutine in tests/defs, which
could use "test ! -e FILE" on decent shells and something like
"test ! -f FILE && test ! -d FILE && test ! -r FILE" on dumber
shells. Then we can use that subroutine instead of the suboptimal
`test ! -r'.
> Technically the patch is OK with me.
OK, thanks.
Regards,
Stefano
[PATCH] Internationalization tests: prefer `test ! -r' over `test ! -f', Stefano Lattarini, 2010/09/06
Re: [PATCH] Internationalization tests: prefer `test ! -r' over `test ! -f', Bruno Haible, 2010/09/06
Re: [PATCH] Internationalization tests: prefer `test ! -r' over `test ! -f',
Stefano Lattarini <=
Re: [PATCH] Internationalization tests: prefer `test ! -r' over `test ! -f', Bruno Haible, 2010/09/06
Re: automake po / pot file integration: first tests available, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/09/06
Re: automake po / pot file integration: first tests available, Bruno Haible, 2010/09/06
- Re: automake po / pot file integration: first tests available, Stefano Lattarini, 2010/09/06
- Re: automake po / pot file integration: first tests available, Stefano Lattarini, 2010/09/06
- Re: automake po / pot file integration: first tests available, Stefano Lattarini, 2010/09/06
- Re: automake po / pot file integration: first tests available, Bruno Haible, 2010/09/07
- Re: automake po / pot file integration: first tests available, Stefano Lattarini, 2010/09/07
- Re: automake po / pot file integration: first tests available, Bruno Haible, 2010/09/07
- Re: automake po / pot file integration: first tests available, Stefano Lattarini, 2010/09/08