rm: refactor prompt_file, issue #5345

[terade]

Refactor prompt_file, add helper function.

[sylvestre]

Did you try moving this into a function?

[terade]

No I only tried to address the nesting depth of the control flow mostly with early returns. Since I orientated myself on tertsdiepraam comment in rm: refactor prompt file, issue #5345.
Should I additionally use a helper function?

[sylvestre]

if you don't mind trying, yeah, moving it to a function could help to make the code more readable :)

[terade]

What is the right procedure now closing the pull request and opening a new one?

[tertsdiepraam]

@terade just add on to this one and rename it!

For some pointers: look into if let and let else, which would be really helpful here.

[terade]

Should I apply the lint suggestion (it isn't related to my code) or would that lead to confusion, on why an unrelated file has been touched?
Sorry again for the extra work created by me.

[cakebaker]

@terade no, this is not necessary. It is already fixed in #5360

And there's no need to apologize, it's a legitimate question :)

[cakebaker]

Passing a Result to the function looks a bit odd to me. I think it would be cleaner to retrieve the metadata inside the function:

Suggested change

	fn prompt_file_permission_readonly(
	path: &Path,
	metadata_or_err: Result<Metadata, std::io::Error>,
	) -> bool {
	match metadata_or_err {
	fn prompt_file_permission_readonly(path: &Path) -> bool {
	match fs::metadata(path) {

[cakebaker]

Good catch, I didn't notice this simplification :)

[terade]

Should I still leave it in its own function or move it into prompt_file?
(and thanks :))

[cakebaker]

It's fine as it is.

[cakebaker]

Thanks for your PR!