What is the difference between the commands test -e path and test -f path?

Question

Options

• AThey are equivalent options with the same behaviour.
• BThe -f option tests for a regular file. The -e option tests for an empty file.
• CBoth options check the existence of the path. The -f option also confirms that it is a regular file.
• DThe -f option tests for a regular file. The -e option tests for an executable file.

• A
  8% (3)
• B
  3% (1)
• C
  85% (33)
• D
  5% (2)

Explanation

Option C is correct because -e checks whether anything exists at the given path (file, directory, symlink, device node, etc.), while -f goes further and also verifies the path refers specifically to a regular file - so every file that passes -f would also pass -e, but not the reverse.

• A is wrong because the two options have distinct behaviors; -e is broader in scope than -f.
• B is wrong because -e does not test for an empty file - that would be -s (which actually tests for a non-empty file). -e simply tests for existence.
• D is wrong because -e has nothing to do with executability; the executable test is -x.

Memory tip: Think of -e as "exists" (anything at all) and -f as "file" (exists and is a regular file) - the letter matches the concept directly.

No community discussion yet for this question.