This section probably holds the most tests, I'll list them in some logical order. Since Bash 4.1, all tests related to permissions respect ACLs, if the underlying filesystem/OS supports them.

Operator syntax Description
-a <FILE> True if <FILE> exists. :!: (not recommended, may collide with -a for AND, see below)
-e <FILE> True if <FILE> exists.
-f <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and is a regular file.
-d <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and is a directory.
-c <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and is a character special file.
-b <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and is a block special file.
-p <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and is a named pipe (FIFO).
-S <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and is a socket file.
-L <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and is a symbolic link.
-h <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and is a symbolic link.
-g <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and has sgid bit set.
-u <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and has suid bit set.
-r <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and is readable.
-w <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and is writable.
-x <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and is executable.
-s <FILE> True, if <FILE> exists and has size bigger than 0 (not empty).
-t <fd> True, if file descriptor <fd> is open and refers to a terminal.
<FILE1> -nt <FILE2> True, if <FILE1> is newer than <FILE2> (mtime). :!:
<FILE1> -ot <FILE2> True, if <FILE1> is older than <FILE2> (mtime). :!:
<FILE1> -ef <FILE2> True, if <FILE1> and <FILE2> refer to the same device and inode numbers. :!:
Operator syntaxDescription
-z <STRING>True, if <STRING> is empty.
-n <STRING>True, if <STRING> is not empty (this is the default operation).
<STRING1> = <STRING2>True, if the strings are equal.
<STRING1> != <STRING2>True, if the strings are not equal.
<STRING1> < <STRING2>True if <STRING1> sorts before <STRING2> lexicographically (pure ASCII, not current locale!). Remember to escape! Use \<
<STRING1> > <STRING2>True if <STRING1> sorts after <STRING2> lexicographically (pure ASCII, not current locale!). Remember to escape! Use >
Operator syntaxDescription
<INTEGER1> -eq <INTEGER2>True, if the integers are equal.
<INTEGER1> -ne <INTEGER2>True, if the integers are NOT equal.
<INTEGER1> -le <INTEGER2>True, if the first integer is less than or equal second one.
<INTEGER1> -ge <INTEGER2>True, if the first integer is greater than or equal second one.
<INTEGER1> -lt <INTEGER2>True, if the first integer is less than second one.
<INTEGER1> -gt <INTEGER2>True, if the first integer is greater than second one.
Operator syntax Description
<TEST1> -a <TEST2> True, if <TEST1> and <TEST2> are true (AND). Note that -a also may be used as a file test (see above)
<TEST1> -o <TEST2> True, if either <TEST1> or <TEST2> is true (OR).
! <TEST> True, if <TEST> is false (NOT).
( <TEST> ) Group a test (for precedence). Attention: In normal shell-usage, the “(” and “)” must be escaped; use “(” and “)”!
-o <OPTIONNAME> | True, if the shell option <OPTIONNAME> is set.
-v <VARIABLENAME> True if the variable <VARIABLENAME> has been set. Use var[n] for array elements.
-R <VARIABLENAME> True if the variable <VARIABLENAME> has been set and is a nameref variable (since 4.3-alpha)

The test builtin, especially hidden under its [ name, may seem simple but is in fact causing a lot of trouble sometimes. One of the difficulty is that the behaviour of test not only depends on its arguments but also on the number of its arguments.

Here are the rules taken from the manual (Note: This is for the command test, for [ the number of arguments is calculated without the final ], for example [ ] follows the “zero arguments” rule):

  • 0 arguments
    • The expression is false.
    • 1 argument
      • The expression is true if, and only if, the argument is not null
    • 2 arguments
      • If the first argument is ! (exclamation mark), the expression is true if, and only if, the second argument is null
      • If the first argument is one of the unary conditional operators listed above under the syntax rules, the expression is true if the unary test is true
      • If the first argument is not a valid unary conditional operator, the expression is false
    • 3 arguments
      • If the second argument is one of the binary conditional operators listed above under the syntax rules, the result of the expression is the result of the binary test using the first and third arguments as operands
      • If the first argument is !, the value is the negation of the two-argument test using the second and third arguments
      • If the first argument is exactly ( and the third argument is exactly ), the result is the one-argument test of the second argument. Otherwise, the expression is false. The -a and -o operators are considered binary operators in this case (Attention: This means the operator -a is not a file operator in this case!)
    • 4 arguments
      • If the first argument is !, the result is the negation of the three-argument expression composed of the remaining arguments. Otherwise, the expression is parsed and evaluated according to precedence using the rules listed above
    • 5 or more arguments
      • The expression is parsed and evaluated according to precedence using the rules listed above

These rules may seem complex, but it's not so bad in practice. Knowing them might help you to explain some of the “unexplicable” behaviours you might encounter:

var=""
if [ -n $var ]; then echo "var is not empty"; fi

This code prints “var is not empty”, even though -n something is supposed to be true if $var is not empty - why?

Here, as $var is not quoted, word splitting occurs and $var results in actually nothing (Bash removes it from the command's argument list!). So the test is in fact [ -n ] and falls into the “one argument” rule, the only argument is “-n” which is not null and so the test returns true. The solution, as usual, is to quote the parameter expansion: [ -n “$var” ] so that the test has always 2 arguments, even if the second one is the null string.

These rules also explain why, for instance, -a and -o can have several meanings.

The way often recommended to logically connect several tests with AND and OR is to use several single test commands and to combine them with the shell && and || list control operators.

See this:

if [ -n "$var"] && [ -e "$var"]; then
   echo "\$var is not null and a file named $var exists!"
fi

The return status of AND and OR lists is the exit status of the last command executed in the list

  • With command1 && command2, command2 is executed if, and only if, command1 returns an exit status of zero (true)
  • With command1 ¦¦ command2, command2 is executed if, and only if, command1 returns a non-zero exit status (false)

The logical operators AND and OR for the test-command itself are -a and -o, thus:

if [ -n "$var" -a -e "$var" ] ; then
   echo "\$var is not null and a file named $var exists"
fi

They are not && or ||:

$ if [ -n "/tmp" && -d "/tmp"]; then echo true; fi # DOES NOT WORK
bash: [: missing `]'

You might find the error message confusing, [ does not find the required final ], because as seen above && is used to write a list of commands. The if statement actually sees two commands:

  • [ -n “/tmp”
  • -d “/tmp” ]

…which must fail.

If portability is a concern

POSIX®/SUSv3 does not specify the behaviour of test in cases where there are more than 4 arguments. If you write a script that might not be executed by Bash, the behaviour might be different! 1)

If you want the cut behaviour

Let's say, we want to check the following two things (AND):

  1. if a string is null (empty)
  2. if a command produced an output

Let's see:

if [ -z "false" -a -z "$(echo I am executed >&2)" ] ; then ... 

⇒ The arguments are all expanded before test runs, thus the echo-command is executed.

if [ -z "false" ] && [ -z "$(echo I am not executed >&2)" ]; then... 

⇒ Due to the nature of the && list operator, the second test-command runs only if the first test-command returns true, our echo-command is not executed.

Note: In my opinion, -a and -o are also less readable [pgas]

Take care if you convert your scripts from using -a and -o to use the list way (&& and ||):

  • in the test-command rules, -a has precedence over -o
  • in the shell grammar rules, && and || have equal precedence

That means, you can get different results, depending on the manner of use:

$ if [ "true" ] || [ -e /does/not/exist ] && [ -e /does/not/exist ]; then echo true; else echo false; fi
false

$ if [ "true" -o -e /does/not/exist -a -e /does/not/exist ]; then  echo true; else echo false;fi
true

As a result you have to think about it a little or add precedence control (parenthesis).

For && and || parenthesis means (shell-ly) grouping the commands, and since ( … ) introduces a subshell we will use { … } instead:

$ if  [ "true" ] || { [ -e /does/not/exist ]  && [ -e /does/not/exist ] ;} ; then echo true; else echo false; fi
true

For the test command, the precedence parenthesis are, as well, ( ), but you need to escape or quote them, so that the shell doesn't try to interpret them:

$ if [ \( "true" -o -e /does/not/exist \) -a -e /does/not/exist ]; then  echo true; else echo false; fi
false

# equivalent, but less readable IMHO:
$ if [ '(' "true" -o -e /does/not/exist ')' -a -e /does/not/exist ]; then  echo true; else echo false; fi
false

As for AND and OR, there are 2 ways to negate a test with the shell keyword ! or passing ! as an argument to test.

Here ! negates the exit status of the command test which is 0 (true), and the else part is executed:

if ! [ -d '/tmp' ]; then echo "/tmp doesn't exists"; else echo "/tmp exists"; fi

Here the test command itself exits with status 1 (false) and the else is also executed:

if  [ ! -d '/tmp' ]; then echo "/tmp doesn't exists"; else echo "/tmp exists"; fi

Unlike for AND and OR, both methods for NOT have an identical behaviour, at least for doing one single test.

In this section you will get all the mentioned (and maybe more) possible pitfalls and problems in a summary.

Here's the copy of a mail on bug-bash list. A user asking a question about using the test command in Bash, he's talking about a problem, which you may have already had yourself:

From: (PROTECTED)
Subject: -d option not working. . .?
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:51:59 -0400
To: bug-bash@gnu.org

Hi All,

I've got a script that I'm trying to set up, but it keeps telling me  
that  "[-d command not found".  Can someone please explain what is  
wrong with this?:




#!/bin/sh

for i in $*
do
{
	if  [-d $i]
	then
		echo "$i is a directory! Yay!"
	else
		echo "$i is not a directory!"
	fi
}
done



Regards

See the problem regarding the used test-command (the other potential problems are not of interest here)?

[-d $i]

He simply didn't know that test or [ is a normal, simple command. Well, here's the answer he got. I quote it here, because it's a well written text that addresses most of the common issues with the “classic” test command:

From: Bob Proulx (EMAIL PROTECTED)
Subject: Re: -d option not working. . .?
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:32:35 -0600
To: bug-bash@gnu.org

> (QUOTED TEXT WAS REMOVED)

The shell is first and foremost a way to launch other commands.  The
syntax is simply "if" followed by a command-list, (e.g. if /some/foo;
or even if cmd1; cmd2; cmd3; then).  Plus the '( ... )' syntax is
already taken by the use of starting a subshell.

As I recall in the original shell language the file test operator was
not built-in.  It was provided by the standalone '/bin/test' command.
The result was effectively this:

  if /bin/test -d somedir

Although the full path /bin/test was never used.  I showed it that way
here for emphasis that following the 'if' statement is a command list.
Normally it would simply have been:

  if test -d somedir

Of course that is fine and for the best portability that style is
still the recommended way today to use the test command.  But many
people find that it looks different from other programming languages.
To make the test operator (note I mention the test operator and not
the shell language, this is a localized change not affecting the
language as a whole) look more like other programming languages the
'test' program was coded to ignore the last argument if it was a ']'.
Then a copy of the test program could be used as the '[' program.

  ...modify /bin/test to ignore ']' as last argument...
  cp /bin/test /bin/[

This allows:

  if [ -d somedir ]

Doesn't that look more normal?  People liked it and it caught on.  It
was so popular that both 'test' and '[' are now shell built-ins.  They
don't launch an external '/bin/test' program anymore.  But they *used*
to launch external programs.  Therefore argument parsing is the same
as if they still did launch an external program.  This affects
argument parsing.

  it test -f *.txt
  test: too many arguments

Oops.  I have twenty .txt files and so test got one -f followed by the
first file followed by the remaining files.  (e.g. test -f 1.txt 2.txt
3.txt 4.txt)

  if test -d $file
  test: argument expected

Oops.  I meant to set file.

  file=/path/some/file
  if test -d $file

If variables such as that are not set then they wlll be expanded by
the shell before passing them to the (possibly external) command and
disappear entirely.  This is why test arguments should always be quoted.

  if test -d "$file"
  if [ -d "$file" ]

Actually today test is defined that if only one argument is given as
in this case "test FOO" then then test returns true if the argument is
non-zero in text length.  Because "-d" is non-zero length "test -d" is
true.  The number of arguments affects how test parses the args.  This
avoids a case where depending upon the data may look like a test
operator.

  DATA="something"
  if test "$DATA"         # true, $DATA is non-zero length

  DATA=""
  if test "$DATA"         # false, $DATA is zero length

But the problem case is how should test handle an argument that looks
like an operator?  This used to generate errors but now because it is
only one argument is defined to be the same as test -n $DATA.

  DATA="-d"
  if test "$DATA"         # true, $DATA is non-zero length
  if test -d              # true, same as previous case.

Because test and [ are possibly external commands all of the parts of
them are chosen to avoid shell metacharacters.  The Fortran operator
naming was well known at the time (e.g. .gt., .eq., etc.) and was
pressed into service for the shell test operator too.  Comming from
Fortran using -gt, -eq, etc. looked very normal.

Incorrect use generating unlikely to be intended results:

  if test 5 > 2    # true, "5" is non-zero length, creates file named "2"

Intended use:

  if test 5 -gt 2  # true (and no shell meta characters needing quoting)

Then much later, sometime in the mid 1980's, the Korn sh decided to
improve upon this situation.  A new test operator was introduced.
This one was always a shell built-in and therefore could act upon the
shell arguments directly.  This is '[[' which is a shell keyword.
(Keyword, metacharacters, builtins, all are different.)  Because the
shell processes [[ internally all arguments are known and do not need
to be quoted.

  if [[ -d $file ]]  # okay
  if [[ 5 > 2 ]]     # okay

I am sure that I am remembering a detail wrong but hopefully this is
useful as a gentle introduction and interesting anyway.

Bob

I hope this text protects you a bit from stepping from one pitfall into the next.

I find it very interesting and informative, that's why I quoted it here. Many thanks, Bob, also for the permission to copy the text here!

Some code snipplets follow, different ways of shell reaction is used.

  • check if a variable is defined/non-NULL
    • check if a directory exists, if not, create it
      • test ! -d /home/user/foo && mkdir /home/user/foo
      • [ ! -d /home/user/foo ] && mkdir /home/user/foo
      • if [ ! -d /home/user/foo ]; then mkdir /home/user/foo; fi
    • check if minimum one parameter was given, and that one is “Hello”
      • test $# -ge 1 -a “$1” = “Hello” || exit 1
      • [ $# -ge 1 ] && [ “$1” = “Hello” ] || exit 1 (see lists description)

Using a for-loop to iterate through all entries of a directory, if an entry is a directory ([ -d “$fn” ]), print its name:

for fn in *; do
  [ -d "$fn" ] && echo "$fn"
done

http://wiki.bash-hackers.org/scripting/basics


1)
<rant>Of course, one can wonder what is the use of including the parenthesis in the specification without defining the behaviour with more than 4 arguments or how usefull are the examples with 7 or 9 arguments attached to the specification.</rant>