Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 05:14:54PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> OK. I am wondering why we do not do >> >> rm -fr "$TRASH_DIRECTORY" >> >> and do this instead: >> >> cd "$(dirname "$remove_trash")" && >> rm -rf "$(basename "$remove_trash")" >> >> in the original. It feels somewhat unnatural. > > I assumed the "cd" was there because some systems may be unhappy > removing a directory which is our current working directory. That might > just be superstition, though.
Ahh, OK, that makes sense. I forgot about that. > The use of "basename" in the second does seem superfluous, since the > trash directory should be the full path (I suspect it wasn't in the > early days, though). > >> So perhaps we can simplify and make it more robust by doing this? >> [...] >> + if test -z "$debug" >> + then >> + test -d "$TRASH_DIRECTORY" || >> + error "Tests passed but trash directory already removed >> before test cleanup; aborting" >> + >> + rm -fr "$TRASH_DIRECTORY" || >> + error "Tests passed but test cleanup failed; aborting" >> + fi > > That looks fine, assuming the answer to the "is the cwd important" > question is "no". And I do think the answer would be "yes", unfortunately. There are systems that do not even allow a file to be removed while it is open, so...
