Check if a file exists with wildcard in shell script [duplicate]












238
















This question already has an answer here:




  • Test whether a glob has any matches in bash

    18 answers




I'm trying to check if a file exists, but with a wildcard. Here is my example:



if [ -f "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
printf "BLAH"
fi


I have also tried it without the double quotes.










share|improve this question















marked as duplicate by John Kugelman shell
Users with the  shell badge can single-handedly close shell questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
May 31 '18 at 8:31


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.














  • 17





    Two bugs with your code: (1) The asterisk has to be outside the double quotes (a quoted asterisk loses it special wildcard meaning), and (2) if multiple files match the pattern, multiple arguments will be passed to the [ command, most likely causing [ to exit with an error and therefore be interpreted as no files matching.

    – Richard Hansen
    Jun 17 '11 at 6:31


















238
















This question already has an answer here:




  • Test whether a glob has any matches in bash

    18 answers




I'm trying to check if a file exists, but with a wildcard. Here is my example:



if [ -f "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
printf "BLAH"
fi


I have also tried it without the double quotes.










share|improve this question















marked as duplicate by John Kugelman shell
Users with the  shell badge can single-handedly close shell questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
May 31 '18 at 8:31


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.














  • 17





    Two bugs with your code: (1) The asterisk has to be outside the double quotes (a quoted asterisk loses it special wildcard meaning), and (2) if multiple files match the pattern, multiple arguments will be passed to the [ command, most likely causing [ to exit with an error and therefore be interpreted as no files matching.

    – Richard Hansen
    Jun 17 '11 at 6:31
















238












238








238


51







This question already has an answer here:




  • Test whether a glob has any matches in bash

    18 answers




I'm trying to check if a file exists, but with a wildcard. Here is my example:



if [ -f "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
printf "BLAH"
fi


I have also tried it without the double quotes.










share|improve this question

















This question already has an answer here:




  • Test whether a glob has any matches in bash

    18 answers




I'm trying to check if a file exists, but with a wildcard. Here is my example:



if [ -f "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
printf "BLAH"
fi


I have also tried it without the double quotes.





This question already has an answer here:




  • Test whether a glob has any matches in bash

    18 answers








shell sh wildcard






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Oct 11 '16 at 4:58









tripleee

94.9k13133188




94.9k13133188










asked Jun 15 '11 at 19:50









DannyDanny

1,92251826




1,92251826




marked as duplicate by John Kugelman shell
Users with the  shell badge can single-handedly close shell questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
May 31 '18 at 8:31


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









marked as duplicate by John Kugelman shell
Users with the  shell badge can single-handedly close shell questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
May 31 '18 at 8:31


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.










  • 17





    Two bugs with your code: (1) The asterisk has to be outside the double quotes (a quoted asterisk loses it special wildcard meaning), and (2) if multiple files match the pattern, multiple arguments will be passed to the [ command, most likely causing [ to exit with an error and therefore be interpreted as no files matching.

    – Richard Hansen
    Jun 17 '11 at 6:31
















  • 17





    Two bugs with your code: (1) The asterisk has to be outside the double quotes (a quoted asterisk loses it special wildcard meaning), and (2) if multiple files match the pattern, multiple arguments will be passed to the [ command, most likely causing [ to exit with an error and therefore be interpreted as no files matching.

    – Richard Hansen
    Jun 17 '11 at 6:31










17




17





Two bugs with your code: (1) The asterisk has to be outside the double quotes (a quoted asterisk loses it special wildcard meaning), and (2) if multiple files match the pattern, multiple arguments will be passed to the [ command, most likely causing [ to exit with an error and therefore be interpreted as no files matching.

– Richard Hansen
Jun 17 '11 at 6:31







Two bugs with your code: (1) The asterisk has to be outside the double quotes (a quoted asterisk loses it special wildcard meaning), and (2) if multiple files match the pattern, multiple arguments will be passed to the [ command, most likely causing [ to exit with an error and therefore be interpreted as no files matching.

– Richard Hansen
Jun 17 '11 at 6:31














21 Answers
21






active

oldest

votes


















351














The simplest should be to rely on ls return value (it returns non-zero when the files do not exist):



if ls /path/to/your/files* 1> /dev/null 2>&1; then
echo "files do exist"
else
echo "files do not exist"
fi


I redirected the ls output to make it completely silent.





EDIT: Since this answer has got a bit of attention (and very useful critic remarks as comments), here is an optimization that also relies on glob expansion, but avoids the use of ls:



for f in /path/to/your/files*; do

## Check if the glob gets expanded to existing files.
## If not, f here will be exactly the pattern above
## and the exists test will evaluate to false.
[ -e "$f" ] && echo "files do exist" || echo "files do not exist"

## This is all we needed to know, so we can break after the first iteration
break
done


This is very similar to @grok12's answer, but it avoids the unnecessary iteration through the whole list.






share|improve this answer





















  • 7





    A word of warning: In the Debian Almquist Shell (dash) — installed at /bin/sh in Debian and Ubuntu — &> seems to discard the exit code and that breaks this solution. A workaround is to redirect with > /dev/null 2>&1 instead.

    – qerub
    Nov 20 '11 at 18:42






  • 18





    ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

    – musiphil
    Jun 21 '12 at 21:01













  • Would it be better to list the files into text file and look at that if you were dealing with a lot of searches?

    – Mike Q
    Jun 13 '14 at 16:35






  • 1





    @CostiCiudatu have you checked how that alternative works when there are spaces in the directory name? Wouldn't e.g. for f in /path/to/your files* interpreted as two arguments, /path/to/your and files*? I've tried putting double-quotes around, but that didn't work out (never finds a file, even if there's one).

    – Izzy
    Dec 13 '14 at 21:00






  • 3





    @Izzy, you are supposed to put that in double quotes, but leave the * outside: for f in "/path/to/your files"* should work.

    – Costi Ciudatu
    Dec 13 '14 at 23:02



















51














If your shell has a nullglob option and it's turned on, a wildcard pattern that matches no files will be removed from the command line altogether. This will make ls see no pathname arguments, list the contents of the current directory and succeed, which is wrong. GNU stat, which always fails if given no arguments or an argument naming a nonexistent file, would be more robust. Also, the &> redirection operator is a bashism.



if stat --printf='' /path/to/your/files* 2>/dev/null
then
echo found
else
echo not found
fi


Better still is GNU find, which can handle a wildcard search internally and exit as soon as at it finds one matching file, rather than waste time processing a potentially huge list of them expanded by the shell; this also avoids the risk that the shell might overflow its command line buffer.



if test -n "$(find /dir/to/search -maxdepth 1 -name 'files*' -print -quit)"
then
echo found
else
echo not found
fi


Non-GNU versions of find might not have the -maxdepth option used here to make find search only the /dir/to/search instead of the entire directory tree rooted there.






share|improve this answer



















  • 6





    Letting find handle the wildcard is best because bash, as it expands the pattern, tries to sort the list of the matching file names, which is wasteful and can be expensive.

    – musiphil
    Jun 21 '12 at 21:10











  • @musiphil Launching an external process such as find is even more wasteful if there are only a few files (or none) in the directory.

    – dolmen
    Feb 24 '17 at 16:46











  • @dolmen: You are right. I guess it all depends on the situation; on the other hand, if there are a huge number of files, the wildcard expansion of bash can take more time than launching find.

    – musiphil
    Mar 13 '17 at 18:48











  • @musiphil Even worse: if there is a huge number of the wildcard expansion can simply fail. But in that case, expanding the huge output of find will probably fail too. Note also that listing all files with find just to then test if that output is empty or not is a big waste of resources.

    – dolmen
    Apr 13 '17 at 7:41








  • 1





    @dolmen: Running find with -quit as described in @flabdablet's post will not suffer from a huge number of files, because it quits as soon as it finds the first match and thus will not list all files. So it is not as big a waste of resources as you suggest. Moreover, find doesn't simply "expand" the wildcard as the shell does, but checks each file it finds against the pattern to see if it is a match, so it doesn't fail for a huge number of files.

    – musiphil
    Apr 25 '17 at 1:34





















36














Here is my answer -



files=(xorg-x11-fonts*)

if [ -e "${files[0]}" ];
then
printf "BLAH"
fi





share|improve this answer


























  • You should add unsetopt nomatch if zsh reports errors.

    – Chih-Hsuan Yen
    Jan 3 '15 at 9:38






  • 5





    and shopt -s nullglob for bash

    – nhed
    Jun 27 '16 at 23:28











  • It shouild perhaps be pointed out more clearly that using an array makes this decidedly non-POSIX sh.

    – tripleee
    Sep 26 '17 at 9:11



















19














for i in xorg-x11-fonts*; do
if [ -f "$i" ]; then printf "BLAH"; fi
done


This will work with multiple files and with white space in file names.






share|improve this answer





















  • 4





    It will print multiple "BLAH" if there are multiple matches. Maybe add a break to exit the loop after the first match.

    – tripleee
    May 27 '16 at 18:19






  • 1





    This (with @tripleee ‘s break) gets my vote. By using only native globbing and the file test operator, it avoids even raising the question of corner cases, that comes with using commands like ls or find or from forwarding globs. I think it is free of all the issues, like names with blanks, nullglob setting and bashisms, that were raised for some other answers. I made a function of it: existsAnyFile () { for file; do [ -f "$file" ] && return 0; done; false; }

    – sdenham
    Jun 30 '16 at 15:49













  • Note this gets a stat failure if xorg-x11-fonts* does not exist, which is probably not what you want.

    – rfay
    Nov 8 '18 at 23:04



















18














You can do the following:



set -- xorg-x11-fonts*
if [ -f "$1" ]; then
printf "BLAH"
fi


This works with sh and derivates: ksh and bash. It doesn't create any sub-shell. $(..)and `...` commands create a sub-shell : they fork a process, and they are inefficient. Of course it works with several files, and this solution can be the fastest, or second to the fastest one.



It works too when there's no matches. There isn't need to use nullglob as one of the comentatators say. $1 will contain the origintal test name, therefore the test -f $1 won't success, because the $1 file doesn't exist.






share|improve this answer


























  • The most portable solution!

    – dolmen
    Feb 24 '17 at 17:03






  • 1





    Alas, it doesn't work when there's no matches. $1 will contain the original test name, including the *. You could set "nullglob" in bash so it WILL blank out. THat's not portable, though :)

    – Chris Cogdon
    Mar 9 '18 at 20:55











  • Chris, when there isn't a match, $1 will contain the origintal test name, including the * as you say. Then the test: [ -f "$1" ] won't be sucessfull because the file "*" doesn't exist. Therefore you don't need nullglob, or other tricks. It is 100% portable.

    – joseyluis
    May 16 '18 at 9:59



















14














UPDATE:



Okay, now I definitely have the solution:



files=$(ls xorg-x11-fonts* 2> /dev/null | wc -l)
if [ "$files" != "0" ]
then
echo "Exists"
else
echo "None found."
fi

> Exists





share|improve this answer


























  • In my shell (zsh) it works if there is only one match to the glob, otherwise it expands all the files and the test fails (too many arguments.)

    – Edward Thomson
    Jun 15 '11 at 20:02













  • Update my code. I'm sure this works, I just installed zsh and tested.

    – Swift
    Jun 15 '11 at 20:20











  • Reupdated. My bad.

    – Swift
    Jun 15 '11 at 20:33






  • 1





    ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

    – musiphil
    Jun 21 '12 at 21:01











  • If the globbing matches a directory name, ls will spit out the contentes of that directory which may cause false positives.

    – William Everett
    Mar 21 '16 at 22:00



















13














Maybe this will help someone:



if [ "`echo xorg-x11-fonts*`" != "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
printf "BLAH"
fi





share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    This is the simplest, easiest and most elegant answer that actually works!

    – Serge Stroobandt
    Jun 28 '15 at 14:00






  • 2





    @SergeStroobandt Not sure I agree. The command substitution may be necessary here, but it tickles my cringe reflex.

    – tripleee
    May 27 '16 at 18:21






  • 2





    yea... like what if the file with the literal name xorg-x11-fonts* exists?

    – mlathe
    Oct 12 '16 at 18:32








  • 2





    Not elegant at all because it forks a sub shell to run the echo command.

    – dolmen
    Feb 24 '17 at 16:52






  • 1





    not elegant, ugly AF

    – nhed
    Sep 11 '17 at 15:18



















6














The question wasn't specific to Linux/Bash so I thought I would add the Powershell way - which treats wildcards different - you put it in the quotes like so below:



If (Test-Path "./output/test-pdf-docx/Text-Book-Part-I*"){
Remove-Item -force -v -path ./output/test-pdf-docx/*.pdf
Remove-Item -force -v -path ./output/test-pdf-docx/*.docx
}


I think this is helpful because the concept of the original question covers "shells" in general not just Bash or Linux, and would apply to Powershell users with the same question too.






share|improve this answer































    4














    Strictly speaking, if you only want to print "Blah" here is the solution :



    find . -maxdepth 1 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -printf 'BLAH' -quit


    Here is another way :



    doesFirstFileExist(){
    test -e "$1"
    }

    if doesFirstFileExist xorg-x11-fonts*
    then printf "BLAH"
    fi


    But I think the most optimal is as follow, because it won't try to sort file names :



    if [ -z `find . -maxdepth 1 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -printf 1 -quit` ]
    then printf "BLAH"
    fi





    share|improve this answer
























    • You can also use -exec option of find like this: find . -maxdepth 1 -name '*.o' -exec rm {} ;

      – user3405291
      Mar 14 '18 at 7:49





















    3














    The bash code I use



    if ls /syslog/*.log > /dev/null 2>&1; then 
    echo "Log files are present in /syslog/;
    fi


    Thanks!






    share|improve this answer































      2














      Here's a solution for your specific problem that doesn't require for loops or external commands like ls, find and the like.



      if [ "$(echo xorg-x11-fonts*)" != "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
      printf "BLAH"
      fi


      As you can see, it's just a tad more complicated than what you were hoping for, and relies on the fact that if the shell is not able to expand the glob, it means no files with that glob exist and echo will output the glob as is, which allows us to do a mere string comparison to check whether any of those files exist at all.



      If we were to generalize the procedure, though, we should take into account the fact that files might contain spaces within their names and/or paths and that the glob char could rightfully expand to nothing (in your example, that would be the case of a file whose name is exactly xorg-x11-fonts).



      This could be achieved by the following function, in bash.



      function doesAnyFileExist {
      local arg="$*"
      local files=($arg)
      [ ${#files[@]} -gt 1 ] || [ ${#files[@]} -eq 1 ] && [ -e "${files[0]}" ]
      }


      Going back to your example, it could be invoked like this.



      if doesAnyFileExist "xorg-x11-fonts*"; then
      printf "BLAH"
      fi


      Glob expansion should happen within the function itself for it to work properly, that's why I put the argument in quotes and that's what the first line in the function body is there for: so that any multiple arguments (which could be the result of a glob expansion outside the function, as well as a spurious parameter) would be coalesced into one. Another approach could be to raise an error if there's more than one argument, yet another could be to ignore all but the 1st argument.



      The second line in the function body sets the files var to an array constituted by all the file names that the glob expanded to, one for each array element. It's fine if the file names contain spaces, each array element will contain the names as is, including the spaces.



      The third line in the function body does two things:




      1. It first checks whether there's more than one element in the array. If so, it means the glob surely got expanded to something (due to what we did on the 1st line), which in turn implies that at least one file matching the glob exist, which is all we wanted to know.


      2. If at step 1. we discovered that we got less than 2 elements in the array, then we check whether we got one and if so we check whether that one exist, the usual way. We need to do this extra check in order to account for function arguments without glob chars, in which case the array contains only one, unexpanded, element.







      share|improve this answer



















      • 1





        This is inefficient because $(..) launches a sub-shell.

        – dolmen
        Feb 24 '17 at 16:59













      • @dolmen a sub-shell is just a process like any other. The accepted answer launches the ls command, which for all intent and purposes is as efficient (or inefficient) as a sub-shell is.

        – Fabio A.
        Mar 28 '17 at 9:31











      • I've never written that the accepted answer is better and that I would have accepted if I had been the submitter.

        – dolmen
        Apr 13 '17 at 7:34











      • Notice that the generalized method I explain in this very same answer doesn't use any subshell at all.

        – Fabio A.
        Apr 13 '17 at 11:21





















      1














      I use this:



      filescount=`ls xorg-x11-fonts* | awk 'END { print NR }'`  
      if [ $filescount -gt 0 ]; then
      blah
      fi





      share|improve this answer



















      • 2





        wc -l is more efficient than awk for this task.

        – dolmen
        Feb 24 '17 at 16:57






      • 1





        Counting the number of results is an antipattern anyway. Usually you simply want to see whether ls returned success or not (or better yet avoid ls too and use the shell's built-in functionality).

        – tripleee
        Sep 26 '17 at 9:10



















      1














      IMHO it's better to use find always when testing for files, globs or directories. The stumbling block in doing so is find's exit status: 0 if all paths were traversed successfully, >0 otherwise. The expression you passed to find creates no echo in its exit code.



      The following example tests if a directory has entries:



      $ mkdir A
      $ touch A/b
      $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . && echo 'not empty'
      not empty


      When A has no files grep fails:



      $ rm A/b
      $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . || echo 'empty'
      empty


      When A does not exist grep fails again because find only prints to stderr:



      $ rmdir A
      $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . && echo 'not empty' || echo 'empty'
      find: 'A': No such file or directory
      empty


      Replace -not -empty by any other find expression, but be careful if you -exec a command that prints to stdout. You may want to grep for a more specific expression in such cases.



      This approach works nicely in shell scripts. The originally question was to look for the glob xorg-x11-fonts*:



      if find -maxdepth 0 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -print | head -n1 | grep -q .
      then
      : the glob matched
      else
      : ...not
      fi


      Note that the else-branched is reached if xorg-x11-fonts* had not matched, or find encountered an error. To distinguish the case use $?.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 1





        You probably meant -maxdepth 1 when using -name, since -maxdepth 0 will look at the current directory and not its contents.

        – Chris Cogdon
        Jul 29 '16 at 23:40



















      1














      if [ `ls path1/* path2/* 2> /dev/null | wc -l` -ne 0 ]; then echo ok; else echo no; fi





      share|improve this answer































        0














        Try this



        fileTarget="xorg-x11-fonts*"

        filesFound=$(ls $fileTarget) # 2014-04-03 edit 2: removed dbl-qts around $(...)


        edit 2014-04-03 (removed dbl-quotes and added test file 'Charlie 22.html' (2 spaces)



        case ${filesFound} in
        "" ) printf "NO files found for target=${fileTarget}n" ;;
        * ) printf "FileTarget Files found=${filesFound}n" ;;
        esac


        Test



        fileTarget="*.html"  # where I have some html docs in the current dir

        FileTarget Files found=Baby21.html
        baby22.html
        charlie 22.html
        charlie21.html
        charlie22.html
        charlie23.html

        fileTarget="xorg-x11-fonts*"

        NO files found for target=xorg-x11-fonts*


        Note that this only works in the current directory, or where the var fileTarget includes the path you are want to inspect.






        share|improve this answer


























        • Your code will fail if fileTarget contains whitespace (e.g., fileTarget="my file*").

          – Richard Hansen
          Jun 17 '11 at 6:34











        • @RichardHansen what the solution when there is whitespace?

          – Ross
          Mar 28 '14 at 22:57











        • @Ross: Use the accepted answer: if ls "my file"* >/dev/null 2>&1; then ...

          – Richard Hansen
          Mar 29 '14 at 2:59











        • @RichardHansen thanks, sorry – not working for me. Have it fixed now .

          – Ross
          Apr 2 '14 at 9:44






        • 1





          @Ross, I've added an edit to mine that should work with files with spaces. Basically case "${filesFound}" in .... . Good luck to all.

          – shellter
          Apr 2 '14 at 11:23



















        0














        How about



        if ls -l  | grep -q 'xorg-x11-fonts.*' # grep needs a regex, not a shell glob
        then
        # do something
        else
        # do something else
        fi





        share|improve this answer



















        • 1





          No, don't use ls in scripts and the .* wildcard is redundant (you probably meant grep -q '^xorg-x1-fonts').

          – tripleee
          Sep 26 '17 at 9:08











        • why not parse ls

          – phuclv
          May 31 '18 at 8:48



















        0














        If there is a huge amount of files on a network folder using the wildcard is questionable (speed, or command line arguments overflow).



        I ended up with:



        if [ -n "$(find somedir/that_may_not_exist_yet -maxdepth 1 -name *.ext -print -quit)" ] ; then
        echo Such file exists
        fi





        share|improve this answer

































          0














          You can also cut other files out



          if [ -e $( echo $1 | cut -d" " -f1 ) ] ; then
          ...
          fi





          share|improve this answer


























          • this would be slow because of the subshell. And what if the file name contains space?

            – phuclv
            May 31 '18 at 8:49



















          0














          Using new fancy shmancy features in ksh, bash, and zsh shells (this example doesn't handle spaces in filenames):



          # Declare a regular array (-A will declare an associative array. Kewl!)
          declare -a myarray=( /mydir/tmp*.txt )
          array_length=${#myarray[@]}

          # Not found if the 1st element of the array is the unexpanded string
          # (ie, if it contains a "*")
          if [[ ${myarray[0]} =~ [*] ]] ; then
          echo "No files not found"
          elif [ $array_length -eq 1 ] ; then
          echo "File was found"
          else
          echo "Files were found"
          fi

          for myfile in ${myarray[@]}
          do
          echo "$myfile"
          done


          Yes, this does smell like Perl. Glad I didn't step in it ;)






          share|improve this answer































            0














            Found a couple of neat solutions worth sharing. The first still suffers from "this will break if there's too many matches" problem:



            pat="yourpattern*" matches=($pat) ; [[ "$matches" != "$pat" ]] && echo "found"


            (Recall that if you use an array without the [ ] syntax, you get the first element of the array.)



            If you have "shopt -s nullglob" in your script, you could simply do:



            matches=(yourpattern*) ; [[ "$matches" ]] && echo "found"


            Now, if it's possible to have a ton of files in a directory, you're pretty well much stuck with using find:



            find /path/to/dir -maxdepth 1 -type f -name 'yourpattern*' | grep -q '.' && echo 'found'





            share|improve this answer































              -15














              man test



              if [ -e file ]; then
              ...
              fi


              will work for dirfile.



              regards






              share|improve this answer



















              • 9





                This will not work with wildcards (which is what is asked in this question). If it matches more than one file you will get bash: [: too many arguments

                – user000001
                Apr 17 '13 at 13:28






              • 1





                A little unfair as this works very well on Solaris........

                – SnazzyBootMan
                Oct 9 '15 at 14:47











              • heh, old post, thanks for the support Chris - i was indeed working with Solaris back then as well.

                – Shokodemon
                Sep 24 '17 at 13:09


















              21 Answers
              21






              active

              oldest

              votes








              21 Answers
              21






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              351














              The simplest should be to rely on ls return value (it returns non-zero when the files do not exist):



              if ls /path/to/your/files* 1> /dev/null 2>&1; then
              echo "files do exist"
              else
              echo "files do not exist"
              fi


              I redirected the ls output to make it completely silent.





              EDIT: Since this answer has got a bit of attention (and very useful critic remarks as comments), here is an optimization that also relies on glob expansion, but avoids the use of ls:



              for f in /path/to/your/files*; do

              ## Check if the glob gets expanded to existing files.
              ## If not, f here will be exactly the pattern above
              ## and the exists test will evaluate to false.
              [ -e "$f" ] && echo "files do exist" || echo "files do not exist"

              ## This is all we needed to know, so we can break after the first iteration
              break
              done


              This is very similar to @grok12's answer, but it avoids the unnecessary iteration through the whole list.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 7





                A word of warning: In the Debian Almquist Shell (dash) — installed at /bin/sh in Debian and Ubuntu — &> seems to discard the exit code and that breaks this solution. A workaround is to redirect with > /dev/null 2>&1 instead.

                – qerub
                Nov 20 '11 at 18:42






              • 18





                ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

                – musiphil
                Jun 21 '12 at 21:01













              • Would it be better to list the files into text file and look at that if you were dealing with a lot of searches?

                – Mike Q
                Jun 13 '14 at 16:35






              • 1





                @CostiCiudatu have you checked how that alternative works when there are spaces in the directory name? Wouldn't e.g. for f in /path/to/your files* interpreted as two arguments, /path/to/your and files*? I've tried putting double-quotes around, but that didn't work out (never finds a file, even if there's one).

                – Izzy
                Dec 13 '14 at 21:00






              • 3





                @Izzy, you are supposed to put that in double quotes, but leave the * outside: for f in "/path/to/your files"* should work.

                – Costi Ciudatu
                Dec 13 '14 at 23:02
















              351














              The simplest should be to rely on ls return value (it returns non-zero when the files do not exist):



              if ls /path/to/your/files* 1> /dev/null 2>&1; then
              echo "files do exist"
              else
              echo "files do not exist"
              fi


              I redirected the ls output to make it completely silent.





              EDIT: Since this answer has got a bit of attention (and very useful critic remarks as comments), here is an optimization that also relies on glob expansion, but avoids the use of ls:



              for f in /path/to/your/files*; do

              ## Check if the glob gets expanded to existing files.
              ## If not, f here will be exactly the pattern above
              ## and the exists test will evaluate to false.
              [ -e "$f" ] && echo "files do exist" || echo "files do not exist"

              ## This is all we needed to know, so we can break after the first iteration
              break
              done


              This is very similar to @grok12's answer, but it avoids the unnecessary iteration through the whole list.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 7





                A word of warning: In the Debian Almquist Shell (dash) — installed at /bin/sh in Debian and Ubuntu — &> seems to discard the exit code and that breaks this solution. A workaround is to redirect with > /dev/null 2>&1 instead.

                – qerub
                Nov 20 '11 at 18:42






              • 18





                ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

                – musiphil
                Jun 21 '12 at 21:01













              • Would it be better to list the files into text file and look at that if you were dealing with a lot of searches?

                – Mike Q
                Jun 13 '14 at 16:35






              • 1





                @CostiCiudatu have you checked how that alternative works when there are spaces in the directory name? Wouldn't e.g. for f in /path/to/your files* interpreted as two arguments, /path/to/your and files*? I've tried putting double-quotes around, but that didn't work out (never finds a file, even if there's one).

                – Izzy
                Dec 13 '14 at 21:00






              • 3





                @Izzy, you are supposed to put that in double quotes, but leave the * outside: for f in "/path/to/your files"* should work.

                – Costi Ciudatu
                Dec 13 '14 at 23:02














              351












              351








              351







              The simplest should be to rely on ls return value (it returns non-zero when the files do not exist):



              if ls /path/to/your/files* 1> /dev/null 2>&1; then
              echo "files do exist"
              else
              echo "files do not exist"
              fi


              I redirected the ls output to make it completely silent.





              EDIT: Since this answer has got a bit of attention (and very useful critic remarks as comments), here is an optimization that also relies on glob expansion, but avoids the use of ls:



              for f in /path/to/your/files*; do

              ## Check if the glob gets expanded to existing files.
              ## If not, f here will be exactly the pattern above
              ## and the exists test will evaluate to false.
              [ -e "$f" ] && echo "files do exist" || echo "files do not exist"

              ## This is all we needed to know, so we can break after the first iteration
              break
              done


              This is very similar to @grok12's answer, but it avoids the unnecessary iteration through the whole list.






              share|improve this answer















              The simplest should be to rely on ls return value (it returns non-zero when the files do not exist):



              if ls /path/to/your/files* 1> /dev/null 2>&1; then
              echo "files do exist"
              else
              echo "files do not exist"
              fi


              I redirected the ls output to make it completely silent.





              EDIT: Since this answer has got a bit of attention (and very useful critic remarks as comments), here is an optimization that also relies on glob expansion, but avoids the use of ls:



              for f in /path/to/your/files*; do

              ## Check if the glob gets expanded to existing files.
              ## If not, f here will be exactly the pattern above
              ## and the exists test will evaluate to false.
              [ -e "$f" ] && echo "files do exist" || echo "files do not exist"

              ## This is all we needed to know, so we can break after the first iteration
              break
              done


              This is very similar to @grok12's answer, but it avoids the unnecessary iteration through the whole list.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Nov 14 '14 at 16:35









              greg0ire

              15.8k136088




              15.8k136088










              answered Jun 15 '11 at 20:56









              Costi CiudatuCosti Ciudatu

              28.2k54582




              28.2k54582








              • 7





                A word of warning: In the Debian Almquist Shell (dash) — installed at /bin/sh in Debian and Ubuntu — &> seems to discard the exit code and that breaks this solution. A workaround is to redirect with > /dev/null 2>&1 instead.

                – qerub
                Nov 20 '11 at 18:42






              • 18





                ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

                – musiphil
                Jun 21 '12 at 21:01













              • Would it be better to list the files into text file and look at that if you were dealing with a lot of searches?

                – Mike Q
                Jun 13 '14 at 16:35






              • 1





                @CostiCiudatu have you checked how that alternative works when there are spaces in the directory name? Wouldn't e.g. for f in /path/to/your files* interpreted as two arguments, /path/to/your and files*? I've tried putting double-quotes around, but that didn't work out (never finds a file, even if there's one).

                – Izzy
                Dec 13 '14 at 21:00






              • 3





                @Izzy, you are supposed to put that in double quotes, but leave the * outside: for f in "/path/to/your files"* should work.

                – Costi Ciudatu
                Dec 13 '14 at 23:02














              • 7





                A word of warning: In the Debian Almquist Shell (dash) — installed at /bin/sh in Debian and Ubuntu — &> seems to discard the exit code and that breaks this solution. A workaround is to redirect with > /dev/null 2>&1 instead.

                – qerub
                Nov 20 '11 at 18:42






              • 18





                ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

                – musiphil
                Jun 21 '12 at 21:01













              • Would it be better to list the files into text file and look at that if you were dealing with a lot of searches?

                – Mike Q
                Jun 13 '14 at 16:35






              • 1





                @CostiCiudatu have you checked how that alternative works when there are spaces in the directory name? Wouldn't e.g. for f in /path/to/your files* interpreted as two arguments, /path/to/your and files*? I've tried putting double-quotes around, but that didn't work out (never finds a file, even if there's one).

                – Izzy
                Dec 13 '14 at 21:00






              • 3





                @Izzy, you are supposed to put that in double quotes, but leave the * outside: for f in "/path/to/your files"* should work.

                – Costi Ciudatu
                Dec 13 '14 at 23:02








              7




              7





              A word of warning: In the Debian Almquist Shell (dash) — installed at /bin/sh in Debian and Ubuntu — &> seems to discard the exit code and that breaks this solution. A workaround is to redirect with > /dev/null 2>&1 instead.

              – qerub
              Nov 20 '11 at 18:42





              A word of warning: In the Debian Almquist Shell (dash) — installed at /bin/sh in Debian and Ubuntu — &> seems to discard the exit code and that breaks this solution. A workaround is to redirect with > /dev/null 2>&1 instead.

              – qerub
              Nov 20 '11 at 18:42




              18




              18





              ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

              – musiphil
              Jun 21 '12 at 21:01







              ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

              – musiphil
              Jun 21 '12 at 21:01















              Would it be better to list the files into text file and look at that if you were dealing with a lot of searches?

              – Mike Q
              Jun 13 '14 at 16:35





              Would it be better to list the files into text file and look at that if you were dealing with a lot of searches?

              – Mike Q
              Jun 13 '14 at 16:35




              1




              1





              @CostiCiudatu have you checked how that alternative works when there are spaces in the directory name? Wouldn't e.g. for f in /path/to/your files* interpreted as two arguments, /path/to/your and files*? I've tried putting double-quotes around, but that didn't work out (never finds a file, even if there's one).

              – Izzy
              Dec 13 '14 at 21:00





              @CostiCiudatu have you checked how that alternative works when there are spaces in the directory name? Wouldn't e.g. for f in /path/to/your files* interpreted as two arguments, /path/to/your and files*? I've tried putting double-quotes around, but that didn't work out (never finds a file, even if there's one).

              – Izzy
              Dec 13 '14 at 21:00




              3




              3





              @Izzy, you are supposed to put that in double quotes, but leave the * outside: for f in "/path/to/your files"* should work.

              – Costi Ciudatu
              Dec 13 '14 at 23:02





              @Izzy, you are supposed to put that in double quotes, but leave the * outside: for f in "/path/to/your files"* should work.

              – Costi Ciudatu
              Dec 13 '14 at 23:02













              51














              If your shell has a nullglob option and it's turned on, a wildcard pattern that matches no files will be removed from the command line altogether. This will make ls see no pathname arguments, list the contents of the current directory and succeed, which is wrong. GNU stat, which always fails if given no arguments or an argument naming a nonexistent file, would be more robust. Also, the &> redirection operator is a bashism.



              if stat --printf='' /path/to/your/files* 2>/dev/null
              then
              echo found
              else
              echo not found
              fi


              Better still is GNU find, which can handle a wildcard search internally and exit as soon as at it finds one matching file, rather than waste time processing a potentially huge list of them expanded by the shell; this also avoids the risk that the shell might overflow its command line buffer.



              if test -n "$(find /dir/to/search -maxdepth 1 -name 'files*' -print -quit)"
              then
              echo found
              else
              echo not found
              fi


              Non-GNU versions of find might not have the -maxdepth option used here to make find search only the /dir/to/search instead of the entire directory tree rooted there.






              share|improve this answer



















              • 6





                Letting find handle the wildcard is best because bash, as it expands the pattern, tries to sort the list of the matching file names, which is wasteful and can be expensive.

                – musiphil
                Jun 21 '12 at 21:10











              • @musiphil Launching an external process such as find is even more wasteful if there are only a few files (or none) in the directory.

                – dolmen
                Feb 24 '17 at 16:46











              • @dolmen: You are right. I guess it all depends on the situation; on the other hand, if there are a huge number of files, the wildcard expansion of bash can take more time than launching find.

                – musiphil
                Mar 13 '17 at 18:48











              • @musiphil Even worse: if there is a huge number of the wildcard expansion can simply fail. But in that case, expanding the huge output of find will probably fail too. Note also that listing all files with find just to then test if that output is empty or not is a big waste of resources.

                – dolmen
                Apr 13 '17 at 7:41








              • 1





                @dolmen: Running find with -quit as described in @flabdablet's post will not suffer from a huge number of files, because it quits as soon as it finds the first match and thus will not list all files. So it is not as big a waste of resources as you suggest. Moreover, find doesn't simply "expand" the wildcard as the shell does, but checks each file it finds against the pattern to see if it is a match, so it doesn't fail for a huge number of files.

                – musiphil
                Apr 25 '17 at 1:34


















              51














              If your shell has a nullglob option and it's turned on, a wildcard pattern that matches no files will be removed from the command line altogether. This will make ls see no pathname arguments, list the contents of the current directory and succeed, which is wrong. GNU stat, which always fails if given no arguments or an argument naming a nonexistent file, would be more robust. Also, the &> redirection operator is a bashism.



              if stat --printf='' /path/to/your/files* 2>/dev/null
              then
              echo found
              else
              echo not found
              fi


              Better still is GNU find, which can handle a wildcard search internally and exit as soon as at it finds one matching file, rather than waste time processing a potentially huge list of them expanded by the shell; this also avoids the risk that the shell might overflow its command line buffer.



              if test -n "$(find /dir/to/search -maxdepth 1 -name 'files*' -print -quit)"
              then
              echo found
              else
              echo not found
              fi


              Non-GNU versions of find might not have the -maxdepth option used here to make find search only the /dir/to/search instead of the entire directory tree rooted there.






              share|improve this answer



















              • 6





                Letting find handle the wildcard is best because bash, as it expands the pattern, tries to sort the list of the matching file names, which is wasteful and can be expensive.

                – musiphil
                Jun 21 '12 at 21:10











              • @musiphil Launching an external process such as find is even more wasteful if there are only a few files (or none) in the directory.

                – dolmen
                Feb 24 '17 at 16:46











              • @dolmen: You are right. I guess it all depends on the situation; on the other hand, if there are a huge number of files, the wildcard expansion of bash can take more time than launching find.

                – musiphil
                Mar 13 '17 at 18:48











              • @musiphil Even worse: if there is a huge number of the wildcard expansion can simply fail. But in that case, expanding the huge output of find will probably fail too. Note also that listing all files with find just to then test if that output is empty or not is a big waste of resources.

                – dolmen
                Apr 13 '17 at 7:41








              • 1





                @dolmen: Running find with -quit as described in @flabdablet's post will not suffer from a huge number of files, because it quits as soon as it finds the first match and thus will not list all files. So it is not as big a waste of resources as you suggest. Moreover, find doesn't simply "expand" the wildcard as the shell does, but checks each file it finds against the pattern to see if it is a match, so it doesn't fail for a huge number of files.

                – musiphil
                Apr 25 '17 at 1:34
















              51












              51








              51







              If your shell has a nullglob option and it's turned on, a wildcard pattern that matches no files will be removed from the command line altogether. This will make ls see no pathname arguments, list the contents of the current directory and succeed, which is wrong. GNU stat, which always fails if given no arguments or an argument naming a nonexistent file, would be more robust. Also, the &> redirection operator is a bashism.



              if stat --printf='' /path/to/your/files* 2>/dev/null
              then
              echo found
              else
              echo not found
              fi


              Better still is GNU find, which can handle a wildcard search internally and exit as soon as at it finds one matching file, rather than waste time processing a potentially huge list of them expanded by the shell; this also avoids the risk that the shell might overflow its command line buffer.



              if test -n "$(find /dir/to/search -maxdepth 1 -name 'files*' -print -quit)"
              then
              echo found
              else
              echo not found
              fi


              Non-GNU versions of find might not have the -maxdepth option used here to make find search only the /dir/to/search instead of the entire directory tree rooted there.






              share|improve this answer













              If your shell has a nullglob option and it's turned on, a wildcard pattern that matches no files will be removed from the command line altogether. This will make ls see no pathname arguments, list the contents of the current directory and succeed, which is wrong. GNU stat, which always fails if given no arguments or an argument naming a nonexistent file, would be more robust. Also, the &> redirection operator is a bashism.



              if stat --printf='' /path/to/your/files* 2>/dev/null
              then
              echo found
              else
              echo not found
              fi


              Better still is GNU find, which can handle a wildcard search internally and exit as soon as at it finds one matching file, rather than waste time processing a potentially huge list of them expanded by the shell; this also avoids the risk that the shell might overflow its command line buffer.



              if test -n "$(find /dir/to/search -maxdepth 1 -name 'files*' -print -quit)"
              then
              echo found
              else
              echo not found
              fi


              Non-GNU versions of find might not have the -maxdepth option used here to make find search only the /dir/to/search instead of the entire directory tree rooted there.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Oct 9 '11 at 8:33









              flabdabletflabdablet

              2,50931813




              2,50931813








              • 6





                Letting find handle the wildcard is best because bash, as it expands the pattern, tries to sort the list of the matching file names, which is wasteful and can be expensive.

                – musiphil
                Jun 21 '12 at 21:10











              • @musiphil Launching an external process such as find is even more wasteful if there are only a few files (or none) in the directory.

                – dolmen
                Feb 24 '17 at 16:46











              • @dolmen: You are right. I guess it all depends on the situation; on the other hand, if there are a huge number of files, the wildcard expansion of bash can take more time than launching find.

                – musiphil
                Mar 13 '17 at 18:48











              • @musiphil Even worse: if there is a huge number of the wildcard expansion can simply fail. But in that case, expanding the huge output of find will probably fail too. Note also that listing all files with find just to then test if that output is empty or not is a big waste of resources.

                – dolmen
                Apr 13 '17 at 7:41








              • 1





                @dolmen: Running find with -quit as described in @flabdablet's post will not suffer from a huge number of files, because it quits as soon as it finds the first match and thus will not list all files. So it is not as big a waste of resources as you suggest. Moreover, find doesn't simply "expand" the wildcard as the shell does, but checks each file it finds against the pattern to see if it is a match, so it doesn't fail for a huge number of files.

                – musiphil
                Apr 25 '17 at 1:34
















              • 6





                Letting find handle the wildcard is best because bash, as it expands the pattern, tries to sort the list of the matching file names, which is wasteful and can be expensive.

                – musiphil
                Jun 21 '12 at 21:10











              • @musiphil Launching an external process such as find is even more wasteful if there are only a few files (or none) in the directory.

                – dolmen
                Feb 24 '17 at 16:46











              • @dolmen: You are right. I guess it all depends on the situation; on the other hand, if there are a huge number of files, the wildcard expansion of bash can take more time than launching find.

                – musiphil
                Mar 13 '17 at 18:48











              • @musiphil Even worse: if there is a huge number of the wildcard expansion can simply fail. But in that case, expanding the huge output of find will probably fail too. Note also that listing all files with find just to then test if that output is empty or not is a big waste of resources.

                – dolmen
                Apr 13 '17 at 7:41








              • 1





                @dolmen: Running find with -quit as described in @flabdablet's post will not suffer from a huge number of files, because it quits as soon as it finds the first match and thus will not list all files. So it is not as big a waste of resources as you suggest. Moreover, find doesn't simply "expand" the wildcard as the shell does, but checks each file it finds against the pattern to see if it is a match, so it doesn't fail for a huge number of files.

                – musiphil
                Apr 25 '17 at 1:34










              6




              6





              Letting find handle the wildcard is best because bash, as it expands the pattern, tries to sort the list of the matching file names, which is wasteful and can be expensive.

              – musiphil
              Jun 21 '12 at 21:10





              Letting find handle the wildcard is best because bash, as it expands the pattern, tries to sort the list of the matching file names, which is wasteful and can be expensive.

              – musiphil
              Jun 21 '12 at 21:10













              @musiphil Launching an external process such as find is even more wasteful if there are only a few files (or none) in the directory.

              – dolmen
              Feb 24 '17 at 16:46





              @musiphil Launching an external process such as find is even more wasteful if there are only a few files (or none) in the directory.

              – dolmen
              Feb 24 '17 at 16:46













              @dolmen: You are right. I guess it all depends on the situation; on the other hand, if there are a huge number of files, the wildcard expansion of bash can take more time than launching find.

              – musiphil
              Mar 13 '17 at 18:48





              @dolmen: You are right. I guess it all depends on the situation; on the other hand, if there are a huge number of files, the wildcard expansion of bash can take more time than launching find.

              – musiphil
              Mar 13 '17 at 18:48













              @musiphil Even worse: if there is a huge number of the wildcard expansion can simply fail. But in that case, expanding the huge output of find will probably fail too. Note also that listing all files with find just to then test if that output is empty or not is a big waste of resources.

              – dolmen
              Apr 13 '17 at 7:41







              @musiphil Even worse: if there is a huge number of the wildcard expansion can simply fail. But in that case, expanding the huge output of find will probably fail too. Note also that listing all files with find just to then test if that output is empty or not is a big waste of resources.

              – dolmen
              Apr 13 '17 at 7:41






              1




              1





              @dolmen: Running find with -quit as described in @flabdablet's post will not suffer from a huge number of files, because it quits as soon as it finds the first match and thus will not list all files. So it is not as big a waste of resources as you suggest. Moreover, find doesn't simply "expand" the wildcard as the shell does, but checks each file it finds against the pattern to see if it is a match, so it doesn't fail for a huge number of files.

              – musiphil
              Apr 25 '17 at 1:34







              @dolmen: Running find with -quit as described in @flabdablet's post will not suffer from a huge number of files, because it quits as soon as it finds the first match and thus will not list all files. So it is not as big a waste of resources as you suggest. Moreover, find doesn't simply "expand" the wildcard as the shell does, but checks each file it finds against the pattern to see if it is a match, so it doesn't fail for a huge number of files.

              – musiphil
              Apr 25 '17 at 1:34













              36














              Here is my answer -



              files=(xorg-x11-fonts*)

              if [ -e "${files[0]}" ];
              then
              printf "BLAH"
              fi





              share|improve this answer


























              • You should add unsetopt nomatch if zsh reports errors.

                – Chih-Hsuan Yen
                Jan 3 '15 at 9:38






              • 5





                and shopt -s nullglob for bash

                – nhed
                Jun 27 '16 at 23:28











              • It shouild perhaps be pointed out more clearly that using an array makes this decidedly non-POSIX sh.

                – tripleee
                Sep 26 '17 at 9:11
















              36














              Here is my answer -



              files=(xorg-x11-fonts*)

              if [ -e "${files[0]}" ];
              then
              printf "BLAH"
              fi





              share|improve this answer


























              • You should add unsetopt nomatch if zsh reports errors.

                – Chih-Hsuan Yen
                Jan 3 '15 at 9:38






              • 5





                and shopt -s nullglob for bash

                – nhed
                Jun 27 '16 at 23:28











              • It shouild perhaps be pointed out more clearly that using an array makes this decidedly non-POSIX sh.

                – tripleee
                Sep 26 '17 at 9:11














              36












              36








              36







              Here is my answer -



              files=(xorg-x11-fonts*)

              if [ -e "${files[0]}" ];
              then
              printf "BLAH"
              fi





              share|improve this answer















              Here is my answer -



              files=(xorg-x11-fonts*)

              if [ -e "${files[0]}" ];
              then
              printf "BLAH"
              fi






              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Jul 2 '13 at 9:35

























              answered Jul 1 '13 at 12:45









              Pankaj ParasharPankaj Parashar

              3,49432538




              3,49432538













              • You should add unsetopt nomatch if zsh reports errors.

                – Chih-Hsuan Yen
                Jan 3 '15 at 9:38






              • 5





                and shopt -s nullglob for bash

                – nhed
                Jun 27 '16 at 23:28











              • It shouild perhaps be pointed out more clearly that using an array makes this decidedly non-POSIX sh.

                – tripleee
                Sep 26 '17 at 9:11



















              • You should add unsetopt nomatch if zsh reports errors.

                – Chih-Hsuan Yen
                Jan 3 '15 at 9:38






              • 5





                and shopt -s nullglob for bash

                – nhed
                Jun 27 '16 at 23:28











              • It shouild perhaps be pointed out more clearly that using an array makes this decidedly non-POSIX sh.

                – tripleee
                Sep 26 '17 at 9:11

















              You should add unsetopt nomatch if zsh reports errors.

              – Chih-Hsuan Yen
              Jan 3 '15 at 9:38





              You should add unsetopt nomatch if zsh reports errors.

              – Chih-Hsuan Yen
              Jan 3 '15 at 9:38




              5




              5





              and shopt -s nullglob for bash

              – nhed
              Jun 27 '16 at 23:28





              and shopt -s nullglob for bash

              – nhed
              Jun 27 '16 at 23:28













              It shouild perhaps be pointed out more clearly that using an array makes this decidedly non-POSIX sh.

              – tripleee
              Sep 26 '17 at 9:11





              It shouild perhaps be pointed out more clearly that using an array makes this decidedly non-POSIX sh.

              – tripleee
              Sep 26 '17 at 9:11











              19














              for i in xorg-x11-fonts*; do
              if [ -f "$i" ]; then printf "BLAH"; fi
              done


              This will work with multiple files and with white space in file names.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 4





                It will print multiple "BLAH" if there are multiple matches. Maybe add a break to exit the loop after the first match.

                – tripleee
                May 27 '16 at 18:19






              • 1





                This (with @tripleee ‘s break) gets my vote. By using only native globbing and the file test operator, it avoids even raising the question of corner cases, that comes with using commands like ls or find or from forwarding globs. I think it is free of all the issues, like names with blanks, nullglob setting and bashisms, that were raised for some other answers. I made a function of it: existsAnyFile () { for file; do [ -f "$file" ] && return 0; done; false; }

                – sdenham
                Jun 30 '16 at 15:49













              • Note this gets a stat failure if xorg-x11-fonts* does not exist, which is probably not what you want.

                – rfay
                Nov 8 '18 at 23:04
















              19














              for i in xorg-x11-fonts*; do
              if [ -f "$i" ]; then printf "BLAH"; fi
              done


              This will work with multiple files and with white space in file names.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 4





                It will print multiple "BLAH" if there are multiple matches. Maybe add a break to exit the loop after the first match.

                – tripleee
                May 27 '16 at 18:19






              • 1





                This (with @tripleee ‘s break) gets my vote. By using only native globbing and the file test operator, it avoids even raising the question of corner cases, that comes with using commands like ls or find or from forwarding globs. I think it is free of all the issues, like names with blanks, nullglob setting and bashisms, that were raised for some other answers. I made a function of it: existsAnyFile () { for file; do [ -f "$file" ] && return 0; done; false; }

                – sdenham
                Jun 30 '16 at 15:49













              • Note this gets a stat failure if xorg-x11-fonts* does not exist, which is probably not what you want.

                – rfay
                Nov 8 '18 at 23:04














              19












              19








              19







              for i in xorg-x11-fonts*; do
              if [ -f "$i" ]; then printf "BLAH"; fi
              done


              This will work with multiple files and with white space in file names.






              share|improve this answer















              for i in xorg-x11-fonts*; do
              if [ -f "$i" ]; then printf "BLAH"; fi
              done


              This will work with multiple files and with white space in file names.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited May 27 '16 at 18:19









              tripleee

              94.9k13133188




              94.9k13133188










              answered Jun 18 '11 at 18:21









              grok12grok12

              1,48351724




              1,48351724








              • 4





                It will print multiple "BLAH" if there are multiple matches. Maybe add a break to exit the loop after the first match.

                – tripleee
                May 27 '16 at 18:19






              • 1





                This (with @tripleee ‘s break) gets my vote. By using only native globbing and the file test operator, it avoids even raising the question of corner cases, that comes with using commands like ls or find or from forwarding globs. I think it is free of all the issues, like names with blanks, nullglob setting and bashisms, that were raised for some other answers. I made a function of it: existsAnyFile () { for file; do [ -f "$file" ] && return 0; done; false; }

                – sdenham
                Jun 30 '16 at 15:49













              • Note this gets a stat failure if xorg-x11-fonts* does not exist, which is probably not what you want.

                – rfay
                Nov 8 '18 at 23:04














              • 4





                It will print multiple "BLAH" if there are multiple matches. Maybe add a break to exit the loop after the first match.

                – tripleee
                May 27 '16 at 18:19






              • 1





                This (with @tripleee ‘s break) gets my vote. By using only native globbing and the file test operator, it avoids even raising the question of corner cases, that comes with using commands like ls or find or from forwarding globs. I think it is free of all the issues, like names with blanks, nullglob setting and bashisms, that were raised for some other answers. I made a function of it: existsAnyFile () { for file; do [ -f "$file" ] && return 0; done; false; }

                – sdenham
                Jun 30 '16 at 15:49













              • Note this gets a stat failure if xorg-x11-fonts* does not exist, which is probably not what you want.

                – rfay
                Nov 8 '18 at 23:04








              4




              4





              It will print multiple "BLAH" if there are multiple matches. Maybe add a break to exit the loop after the first match.

              – tripleee
              May 27 '16 at 18:19





              It will print multiple "BLAH" if there are multiple matches. Maybe add a break to exit the loop after the first match.

              – tripleee
              May 27 '16 at 18:19




              1




              1





              This (with @tripleee ‘s break) gets my vote. By using only native globbing and the file test operator, it avoids even raising the question of corner cases, that comes with using commands like ls or find or from forwarding globs. I think it is free of all the issues, like names with blanks, nullglob setting and bashisms, that were raised for some other answers. I made a function of it: existsAnyFile () { for file; do [ -f "$file" ] && return 0; done; false; }

              – sdenham
              Jun 30 '16 at 15:49







              This (with @tripleee ‘s break) gets my vote. By using only native globbing and the file test operator, it avoids even raising the question of corner cases, that comes with using commands like ls or find or from forwarding globs. I think it is free of all the issues, like names with blanks, nullglob setting and bashisms, that were raised for some other answers. I made a function of it: existsAnyFile () { for file; do [ -f "$file" ] && return 0; done; false; }

              – sdenham
              Jun 30 '16 at 15:49















              Note this gets a stat failure if xorg-x11-fonts* does not exist, which is probably not what you want.

              – rfay
              Nov 8 '18 at 23:04





              Note this gets a stat failure if xorg-x11-fonts* does not exist, which is probably not what you want.

              – rfay
              Nov 8 '18 at 23:04











              18














              You can do the following:



              set -- xorg-x11-fonts*
              if [ -f "$1" ]; then
              printf "BLAH"
              fi


              This works with sh and derivates: ksh and bash. It doesn't create any sub-shell. $(..)and `...` commands create a sub-shell : they fork a process, and they are inefficient. Of course it works with several files, and this solution can be the fastest, or second to the fastest one.



              It works too when there's no matches. There isn't need to use nullglob as one of the comentatators say. $1 will contain the origintal test name, therefore the test -f $1 won't success, because the $1 file doesn't exist.






              share|improve this answer


























              • The most portable solution!

                – dolmen
                Feb 24 '17 at 17:03






              • 1





                Alas, it doesn't work when there's no matches. $1 will contain the original test name, including the *. You could set "nullglob" in bash so it WILL blank out. THat's not portable, though :)

                – Chris Cogdon
                Mar 9 '18 at 20:55











              • Chris, when there isn't a match, $1 will contain the origintal test name, including the * as you say. Then the test: [ -f "$1" ] won't be sucessfull because the file "*" doesn't exist. Therefore you don't need nullglob, or other tricks. It is 100% portable.

                – joseyluis
                May 16 '18 at 9:59
















              18














              You can do the following:



              set -- xorg-x11-fonts*
              if [ -f "$1" ]; then
              printf "BLAH"
              fi


              This works with sh and derivates: ksh and bash. It doesn't create any sub-shell. $(..)and `...` commands create a sub-shell : they fork a process, and they are inefficient. Of course it works with several files, and this solution can be the fastest, or second to the fastest one.



              It works too when there's no matches. There isn't need to use nullglob as one of the comentatators say. $1 will contain the origintal test name, therefore the test -f $1 won't success, because the $1 file doesn't exist.






              share|improve this answer


























              • The most portable solution!

                – dolmen
                Feb 24 '17 at 17:03






              • 1





                Alas, it doesn't work when there's no matches. $1 will contain the original test name, including the *. You could set "nullglob" in bash so it WILL blank out. THat's not portable, though :)

                – Chris Cogdon
                Mar 9 '18 at 20:55











              • Chris, when there isn't a match, $1 will contain the origintal test name, including the * as you say. Then the test: [ -f "$1" ] won't be sucessfull because the file "*" doesn't exist. Therefore you don't need nullglob, or other tricks. It is 100% portable.

                – joseyluis
                May 16 '18 at 9:59














              18












              18








              18







              You can do the following:



              set -- xorg-x11-fonts*
              if [ -f "$1" ]; then
              printf "BLAH"
              fi


              This works with sh and derivates: ksh and bash. It doesn't create any sub-shell. $(..)and `...` commands create a sub-shell : they fork a process, and they are inefficient. Of course it works with several files, and this solution can be the fastest, or second to the fastest one.



              It works too when there's no matches. There isn't need to use nullglob as one of the comentatators say. $1 will contain the origintal test name, therefore the test -f $1 won't success, because the $1 file doesn't exist.






              share|improve this answer















              You can do the following:



              set -- xorg-x11-fonts*
              if [ -f "$1" ]; then
              printf "BLAH"
              fi


              This works with sh and derivates: ksh and bash. It doesn't create any sub-shell. $(..)and `...` commands create a sub-shell : they fork a process, and they are inefficient. Of course it works with several files, and this solution can be the fastest, or second to the fastest one.



              It works too when there's no matches. There isn't need to use nullglob as one of the comentatators say. $1 will contain the origintal test name, therefore the test -f $1 won't success, because the $1 file doesn't exist.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Sep 3 '18 at 8:07

























              answered Dec 22 '16 at 11:09









              joseyluisjoseyluis

              30026




              30026













              • The most portable solution!

                – dolmen
                Feb 24 '17 at 17:03






              • 1





                Alas, it doesn't work when there's no matches. $1 will contain the original test name, including the *. You could set "nullglob" in bash so it WILL blank out. THat's not portable, though :)

                – Chris Cogdon
                Mar 9 '18 at 20:55











              • Chris, when there isn't a match, $1 will contain the origintal test name, including the * as you say. Then the test: [ -f "$1" ] won't be sucessfull because the file "*" doesn't exist. Therefore you don't need nullglob, or other tricks. It is 100% portable.

                – joseyluis
                May 16 '18 at 9:59



















              • The most portable solution!

                – dolmen
                Feb 24 '17 at 17:03






              • 1





                Alas, it doesn't work when there's no matches. $1 will contain the original test name, including the *. You could set "nullglob" in bash so it WILL blank out. THat's not portable, though :)

                – Chris Cogdon
                Mar 9 '18 at 20:55











              • Chris, when there isn't a match, $1 will contain the origintal test name, including the * as you say. Then the test: [ -f "$1" ] won't be sucessfull because the file "*" doesn't exist. Therefore you don't need nullglob, or other tricks. It is 100% portable.

                – joseyluis
                May 16 '18 at 9:59

















              The most portable solution!

              – dolmen
              Feb 24 '17 at 17:03





              The most portable solution!

              – dolmen
              Feb 24 '17 at 17:03




              1




              1





              Alas, it doesn't work when there's no matches. $1 will contain the original test name, including the *. You could set "nullglob" in bash so it WILL blank out. THat's not portable, though :)

              – Chris Cogdon
              Mar 9 '18 at 20:55





              Alas, it doesn't work when there's no matches. $1 will contain the original test name, including the *. You could set "nullglob" in bash so it WILL blank out. THat's not portable, though :)

              – Chris Cogdon
              Mar 9 '18 at 20:55













              Chris, when there isn't a match, $1 will contain the origintal test name, including the * as you say. Then the test: [ -f "$1" ] won't be sucessfull because the file "*" doesn't exist. Therefore you don't need nullglob, or other tricks. It is 100% portable.

              – joseyluis
              May 16 '18 at 9:59





              Chris, when there isn't a match, $1 will contain the origintal test name, including the * as you say. Then the test: [ -f "$1" ] won't be sucessfull because the file "*" doesn't exist. Therefore you don't need nullglob, or other tricks. It is 100% portable.

              – joseyluis
              May 16 '18 at 9:59











              14














              UPDATE:



              Okay, now I definitely have the solution:



              files=$(ls xorg-x11-fonts* 2> /dev/null | wc -l)
              if [ "$files" != "0" ]
              then
              echo "Exists"
              else
              echo "None found."
              fi

              > Exists





              share|improve this answer


























              • In my shell (zsh) it works if there is only one match to the glob, otherwise it expands all the files and the test fails (too many arguments.)

                – Edward Thomson
                Jun 15 '11 at 20:02













              • Update my code. I'm sure this works, I just installed zsh and tested.

                – Swift
                Jun 15 '11 at 20:20











              • Reupdated. My bad.

                – Swift
                Jun 15 '11 at 20:33






              • 1





                ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

                – musiphil
                Jun 21 '12 at 21:01











              • If the globbing matches a directory name, ls will spit out the contentes of that directory which may cause false positives.

                – William Everett
                Mar 21 '16 at 22:00
















              14














              UPDATE:



              Okay, now I definitely have the solution:



              files=$(ls xorg-x11-fonts* 2> /dev/null | wc -l)
              if [ "$files" != "0" ]
              then
              echo "Exists"
              else
              echo "None found."
              fi

              > Exists





              share|improve this answer


























              • In my shell (zsh) it works if there is only one match to the glob, otherwise it expands all the files and the test fails (too many arguments.)

                – Edward Thomson
                Jun 15 '11 at 20:02













              • Update my code. I'm sure this works, I just installed zsh and tested.

                – Swift
                Jun 15 '11 at 20:20











              • Reupdated. My bad.

                – Swift
                Jun 15 '11 at 20:33






              • 1





                ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

                – musiphil
                Jun 21 '12 at 21:01











              • If the globbing matches a directory name, ls will spit out the contentes of that directory which may cause false positives.

                – William Everett
                Mar 21 '16 at 22:00














              14












              14








              14







              UPDATE:



              Okay, now I definitely have the solution:



              files=$(ls xorg-x11-fonts* 2> /dev/null | wc -l)
              if [ "$files" != "0" ]
              then
              echo "Exists"
              else
              echo "None found."
              fi

              > Exists





              share|improve this answer















              UPDATE:



              Okay, now I definitely have the solution:



              files=$(ls xorg-x11-fonts* 2> /dev/null | wc -l)
              if [ "$files" != "0" ]
              then
              echo "Exists"
              else
              echo "None found."
              fi

              > Exists






              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Jun 15 '11 at 20:30

























              answered Jun 15 '11 at 19:53









              SwiftSwift

              10.7k44774




              10.7k44774













              • In my shell (zsh) it works if there is only one match to the glob, otherwise it expands all the files and the test fails (too many arguments.)

                – Edward Thomson
                Jun 15 '11 at 20:02













              • Update my code. I'm sure this works, I just installed zsh and tested.

                – Swift
                Jun 15 '11 at 20:20











              • Reupdated. My bad.

                – Swift
                Jun 15 '11 at 20:33






              • 1





                ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

                – musiphil
                Jun 21 '12 at 21:01











              • If the globbing matches a directory name, ls will spit out the contentes of that directory which may cause false positives.

                – William Everett
                Mar 21 '16 at 22:00



















              • In my shell (zsh) it works if there is only one match to the glob, otherwise it expands all the files and the test fails (too many arguments.)

                – Edward Thomson
                Jun 15 '11 at 20:02













              • Update my code. I'm sure this works, I just installed zsh and tested.

                – Swift
                Jun 15 '11 at 20:20











              • Reupdated. My bad.

                – Swift
                Jun 15 '11 at 20:33






              • 1





                ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

                – musiphil
                Jun 21 '12 at 21:01











              • If the globbing matches a directory name, ls will spit out the contentes of that directory which may cause false positives.

                – William Everett
                Mar 21 '16 at 22:00

















              In my shell (zsh) it works if there is only one match to the glob, otherwise it expands all the files and the test fails (too many arguments.)

              – Edward Thomson
              Jun 15 '11 at 20:02







              In my shell (zsh) it works if there is only one match to the glob, otherwise it expands all the files and the test fails (too many arguments.)

              – Edward Thomson
              Jun 15 '11 at 20:02















              Update my code. I'm sure this works, I just installed zsh and tested.

              – Swift
              Jun 15 '11 at 20:20





              Update my code. I'm sure this works, I just installed zsh and tested.

              – Swift
              Jun 15 '11 at 20:20













              Reupdated. My bad.

              – Swift
              Jun 15 '11 at 20:33





              Reupdated. My bad.

              – Swift
              Jun 15 '11 at 20:33




              1




              1





              ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

              – musiphil
              Jun 21 '12 at 21:01





              ls can be quite slow on a directory with many files (probably due to sorting). You may want to turn off sorting with -U, at least.

              – musiphil
              Jun 21 '12 at 21:01













              If the globbing matches a directory name, ls will spit out the contentes of that directory which may cause false positives.

              – William Everett
              Mar 21 '16 at 22:00





              If the globbing matches a directory name, ls will spit out the contentes of that directory which may cause false positives.

              – William Everett
              Mar 21 '16 at 22:00











              13














              Maybe this will help someone:



              if [ "`echo xorg-x11-fonts*`" != "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
              printf "BLAH"
              fi





              share|improve this answer





















              • 1





                This is the simplest, easiest and most elegant answer that actually works!

                – Serge Stroobandt
                Jun 28 '15 at 14:00






              • 2





                @SergeStroobandt Not sure I agree. The command substitution may be necessary here, but it tickles my cringe reflex.

                – tripleee
                May 27 '16 at 18:21






              • 2





                yea... like what if the file with the literal name xorg-x11-fonts* exists?

                – mlathe
                Oct 12 '16 at 18:32








              • 2





                Not elegant at all because it forks a sub shell to run the echo command.

                – dolmen
                Feb 24 '17 at 16:52






              • 1





                not elegant, ugly AF

                – nhed
                Sep 11 '17 at 15:18
















              13














              Maybe this will help someone:



              if [ "`echo xorg-x11-fonts*`" != "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
              printf "BLAH"
              fi





              share|improve this answer





















              • 1





                This is the simplest, easiest and most elegant answer that actually works!

                – Serge Stroobandt
                Jun 28 '15 at 14:00






              • 2





                @SergeStroobandt Not sure I agree. The command substitution may be necessary here, but it tickles my cringe reflex.

                – tripleee
                May 27 '16 at 18:21






              • 2





                yea... like what if the file with the literal name xorg-x11-fonts* exists?

                – mlathe
                Oct 12 '16 at 18:32








              • 2





                Not elegant at all because it forks a sub shell to run the echo command.

                – dolmen
                Feb 24 '17 at 16:52






              • 1





                not elegant, ugly AF

                – nhed
                Sep 11 '17 at 15:18














              13












              13








              13







              Maybe this will help someone:



              if [ "`echo xorg-x11-fonts*`" != "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
              printf "BLAH"
              fi





              share|improve this answer















              Maybe this will help someone:



              if [ "`echo xorg-x11-fonts*`" != "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
              printf "BLAH"
              fi






              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Jan 7 '14 at 16:54

























              answered Jan 7 '14 at 16:48









              MarianMarian

              6,19711529




              6,19711529








              • 1





                This is the simplest, easiest and most elegant answer that actually works!

                – Serge Stroobandt
                Jun 28 '15 at 14:00






              • 2





                @SergeStroobandt Not sure I agree. The command substitution may be necessary here, but it tickles my cringe reflex.

                – tripleee
                May 27 '16 at 18:21






              • 2





                yea... like what if the file with the literal name xorg-x11-fonts* exists?

                – mlathe
                Oct 12 '16 at 18:32








              • 2





                Not elegant at all because it forks a sub shell to run the echo command.

                – dolmen
                Feb 24 '17 at 16:52






              • 1





                not elegant, ugly AF

                – nhed
                Sep 11 '17 at 15:18














              • 1





                This is the simplest, easiest and most elegant answer that actually works!

                – Serge Stroobandt
                Jun 28 '15 at 14:00






              • 2





                @SergeStroobandt Not sure I agree. The command substitution may be necessary here, but it tickles my cringe reflex.

                – tripleee
                May 27 '16 at 18:21






              • 2





                yea... like what if the file with the literal name xorg-x11-fonts* exists?

                – mlathe
                Oct 12 '16 at 18:32








              • 2





                Not elegant at all because it forks a sub shell to run the echo command.

                – dolmen
                Feb 24 '17 at 16:52






              • 1





                not elegant, ugly AF

                – nhed
                Sep 11 '17 at 15:18








              1




              1





              This is the simplest, easiest and most elegant answer that actually works!

              – Serge Stroobandt
              Jun 28 '15 at 14:00





              This is the simplest, easiest and most elegant answer that actually works!

              – Serge Stroobandt
              Jun 28 '15 at 14:00




              2




              2





              @SergeStroobandt Not sure I agree. The command substitution may be necessary here, but it tickles my cringe reflex.

              – tripleee
              May 27 '16 at 18:21





              @SergeStroobandt Not sure I agree. The command substitution may be necessary here, but it tickles my cringe reflex.

              – tripleee
              May 27 '16 at 18:21




              2




              2





              yea... like what if the file with the literal name xorg-x11-fonts* exists?

              – mlathe
              Oct 12 '16 at 18:32







              yea... like what if the file with the literal name xorg-x11-fonts* exists?

              – mlathe
              Oct 12 '16 at 18:32






              2




              2





              Not elegant at all because it forks a sub shell to run the echo command.

              – dolmen
              Feb 24 '17 at 16:52





              Not elegant at all because it forks a sub shell to run the echo command.

              – dolmen
              Feb 24 '17 at 16:52




              1




              1





              not elegant, ugly AF

              – nhed
              Sep 11 '17 at 15:18





              not elegant, ugly AF

              – nhed
              Sep 11 '17 at 15:18











              6














              The question wasn't specific to Linux/Bash so I thought I would add the Powershell way - which treats wildcards different - you put it in the quotes like so below:



              If (Test-Path "./output/test-pdf-docx/Text-Book-Part-I*"){
              Remove-Item -force -v -path ./output/test-pdf-docx/*.pdf
              Remove-Item -force -v -path ./output/test-pdf-docx/*.docx
              }


              I think this is helpful because the concept of the original question covers "shells" in general not just Bash or Linux, and would apply to Powershell users with the same question too.






              share|improve this answer




























                6














                The question wasn't specific to Linux/Bash so I thought I would add the Powershell way - which treats wildcards different - you put it in the quotes like so below:



                If (Test-Path "./output/test-pdf-docx/Text-Book-Part-I*"){
                Remove-Item -force -v -path ./output/test-pdf-docx/*.pdf
                Remove-Item -force -v -path ./output/test-pdf-docx/*.docx
                }


                I think this is helpful because the concept of the original question covers "shells" in general not just Bash or Linux, and would apply to Powershell users with the same question too.






                share|improve this answer


























                  6












                  6








                  6







                  The question wasn't specific to Linux/Bash so I thought I would add the Powershell way - which treats wildcards different - you put it in the quotes like so below:



                  If (Test-Path "./output/test-pdf-docx/Text-Book-Part-I*"){
                  Remove-Item -force -v -path ./output/test-pdf-docx/*.pdf
                  Remove-Item -force -v -path ./output/test-pdf-docx/*.docx
                  }


                  I think this is helpful because the concept of the original question covers "shells" in general not just Bash or Linux, and would apply to Powershell users with the same question too.






                  share|improve this answer













                  The question wasn't specific to Linux/Bash so I thought I would add the Powershell way - which treats wildcards different - you put it in the quotes like so below:



                  If (Test-Path "./output/test-pdf-docx/Text-Book-Part-I*"){
                  Remove-Item -force -v -path ./output/test-pdf-docx/*.pdf
                  Remove-Item -force -v -path ./output/test-pdf-docx/*.docx
                  }


                  I think this is helpful because the concept of the original question covers "shells" in general not just Bash or Linux, and would apply to Powershell users with the same question too.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Sep 13 '15 at 2:41









                  Jeremy HajekJeremy Hajek

                  1681311




                  1681311























                      4














                      Strictly speaking, if you only want to print "Blah" here is the solution :



                      find . -maxdepth 1 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -printf 'BLAH' -quit


                      Here is another way :



                      doesFirstFileExist(){
                      test -e "$1"
                      }

                      if doesFirstFileExist xorg-x11-fonts*
                      then printf "BLAH"
                      fi


                      But I think the most optimal is as follow, because it won't try to sort file names :



                      if [ -z `find . -maxdepth 1 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -printf 1 -quit` ]
                      then printf "BLAH"
                      fi





                      share|improve this answer
























                      • You can also use -exec option of find like this: find . -maxdepth 1 -name '*.o' -exec rm {} ;

                        – user3405291
                        Mar 14 '18 at 7:49


















                      4














                      Strictly speaking, if you only want to print "Blah" here is the solution :



                      find . -maxdepth 1 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -printf 'BLAH' -quit


                      Here is another way :



                      doesFirstFileExist(){
                      test -e "$1"
                      }

                      if doesFirstFileExist xorg-x11-fonts*
                      then printf "BLAH"
                      fi


                      But I think the most optimal is as follow, because it won't try to sort file names :



                      if [ -z `find . -maxdepth 1 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -printf 1 -quit` ]
                      then printf "BLAH"
                      fi





                      share|improve this answer
























                      • You can also use -exec option of find like this: find . -maxdepth 1 -name '*.o' -exec rm {} ;

                        – user3405291
                        Mar 14 '18 at 7:49
















                      4












                      4








                      4







                      Strictly speaking, if you only want to print "Blah" here is the solution :



                      find . -maxdepth 1 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -printf 'BLAH' -quit


                      Here is another way :



                      doesFirstFileExist(){
                      test -e "$1"
                      }

                      if doesFirstFileExist xorg-x11-fonts*
                      then printf "BLAH"
                      fi


                      But I think the most optimal is as follow, because it won't try to sort file names :



                      if [ -z `find . -maxdepth 1 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -printf 1 -quit` ]
                      then printf "BLAH"
                      fi





                      share|improve this answer













                      Strictly speaking, if you only want to print "Blah" here is the solution :



                      find . -maxdepth 1 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -printf 'BLAH' -quit


                      Here is another way :



                      doesFirstFileExist(){
                      test -e "$1"
                      }

                      if doesFirstFileExist xorg-x11-fonts*
                      then printf "BLAH"
                      fi


                      But I think the most optimal is as follow, because it won't try to sort file names :



                      if [ -z `find . -maxdepth 1 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -printf 1 -quit` ]
                      then printf "BLAH"
                      fi






                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Oct 26 '16 at 13:04









                      VouzeVouze

                      1,00099




                      1,00099













                      • You can also use -exec option of find like this: find . -maxdepth 1 -name '*.o' -exec rm {} ;

                        – user3405291
                        Mar 14 '18 at 7:49





















                      • You can also use -exec option of find like this: find . -maxdepth 1 -name '*.o' -exec rm {} ;

                        – user3405291
                        Mar 14 '18 at 7:49



















                      You can also use -exec option of find like this: find . -maxdepth 1 -name '*.o' -exec rm {} ;

                      – user3405291
                      Mar 14 '18 at 7:49







                      You can also use -exec option of find like this: find . -maxdepth 1 -name '*.o' -exec rm {} ;

                      – user3405291
                      Mar 14 '18 at 7:49













                      3














                      The bash code I use



                      if ls /syslog/*.log > /dev/null 2>&1; then 
                      echo "Log files are present in /syslog/;
                      fi


                      Thanks!






                      share|improve this answer




























                        3














                        The bash code I use



                        if ls /syslog/*.log > /dev/null 2>&1; then 
                        echo "Log files are present in /syslog/;
                        fi


                        Thanks!






                        share|improve this answer


























                          3












                          3








                          3







                          The bash code I use



                          if ls /syslog/*.log > /dev/null 2>&1; then 
                          echo "Log files are present in /syslog/;
                          fi


                          Thanks!






                          share|improve this answer













                          The bash code I use



                          if ls /syslog/*.log > /dev/null 2>&1; then 
                          echo "Log files are present in /syslog/;
                          fi


                          Thanks!







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered Apr 12 '16 at 18:34









                          CapitanBlackCapitanBlack

                          312




                          312























                              2














                              Here's a solution for your specific problem that doesn't require for loops or external commands like ls, find and the like.



                              if [ "$(echo xorg-x11-fonts*)" != "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
                              printf "BLAH"
                              fi


                              As you can see, it's just a tad more complicated than what you were hoping for, and relies on the fact that if the shell is not able to expand the glob, it means no files with that glob exist and echo will output the glob as is, which allows us to do a mere string comparison to check whether any of those files exist at all.



                              If we were to generalize the procedure, though, we should take into account the fact that files might contain spaces within their names and/or paths and that the glob char could rightfully expand to nothing (in your example, that would be the case of a file whose name is exactly xorg-x11-fonts).



                              This could be achieved by the following function, in bash.



                              function doesAnyFileExist {
                              local arg="$*"
                              local files=($arg)
                              [ ${#files[@]} -gt 1 ] || [ ${#files[@]} -eq 1 ] && [ -e "${files[0]}" ]
                              }


                              Going back to your example, it could be invoked like this.



                              if doesAnyFileExist "xorg-x11-fonts*"; then
                              printf "BLAH"
                              fi


                              Glob expansion should happen within the function itself for it to work properly, that's why I put the argument in quotes and that's what the first line in the function body is there for: so that any multiple arguments (which could be the result of a glob expansion outside the function, as well as a spurious parameter) would be coalesced into one. Another approach could be to raise an error if there's more than one argument, yet another could be to ignore all but the 1st argument.



                              The second line in the function body sets the files var to an array constituted by all the file names that the glob expanded to, one for each array element. It's fine if the file names contain spaces, each array element will contain the names as is, including the spaces.



                              The third line in the function body does two things:




                              1. It first checks whether there's more than one element in the array. If so, it means the glob surely got expanded to something (due to what we did on the 1st line), which in turn implies that at least one file matching the glob exist, which is all we wanted to know.


                              2. If at step 1. we discovered that we got less than 2 elements in the array, then we check whether we got one and if so we check whether that one exist, the usual way. We need to do this extra check in order to account for function arguments without glob chars, in which case the array contains only one, unexpanded, element.







                              share|improve this answer



















                              • 1





                                This is inefficient because $(..) launches a sub-shell.

                                – dolmen
                                Feb 24 '17 at 16:59













                              • @dolmen a sub-shell is just a process like any other. The accepted answer launches the ls command, which for all intent and purposes is as efficient (or inefficient) as a sub-shell is.

                                – Fabio A.
                                Mar 28 '17 at 9:31











                              • I've never written that the accepted answer is better and that I would have accepted if I had been the submitter.

                                – dolmen
                                Apr 13 '17 at 7:34











                              • Notice that the generalized method I explain in this very same answer doesn't use any subshell at all.

                                – Fabio A.
                                Apr 13 '17 at 11:21


















                              2














                              Here's a solution for your specific problem that doesn't require for loops or external commands like ls, find and the like.



                              if [ "$(echo xorg-x11-fonts*)" != "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
                              printf "BLAH"
                              fi


                              As you can see, it's just a tad more complicated than what you were hoping for, and relies on the fact that if the shell is not able to expand the glob, it means no files with that glob exist and echo will output the glob as is, which allows us to do a mere string comparison to check whether any of those files exist at all.



                              If we were to generalize the procedure, though, we should take into account the fact that files might contain spaces within their names and/or paths and that the glob char could rightfully expand to nothing (in your example, that would be the case of a file whose name is exactly xorg-x11-fonts).



                              This could be achieved by the following function, in bash.



                              function doesAnyFileExist {
                              local arg="$*"
                              local files=($arg)
                              [ ${#files[@]} -gt 1 ] || [ ${#files[@]} -eq 1 ] && [ -e "${files[0]}" ]
                              }


                              Going back to your example, it could be invoked like this.



                              if doesAnyFileExist "xorg-x11-fonts*"; then
                              printf "BLAH"
                              fi


                              Glob expansion should happen within the function itself for it to work properly, that's why I put the argument in quotes and that's what the first line in the function body is there for: so that any multiple arguments (which could be the result of a glob expansion outside the function, as well as a spurious parameter) would be coalesced into one. Another approach could be to raise an error if there's more than one argument, yet another could be to ignore all but the 1st argument.



                              The second line in the function body sets the files var to an array constituted by all the file names that the glob expanded to, one for each array element. It's fine if the file names contain spaces, each array element will contain the names as is, including the spaces.



                              The third line in the function body does two things:




                              1. It first checks whether there's more than one element in the array. If so, it means the glob surely got expanded to something (due to what we did on the 1st line), which in turn implies that at least one file matching the glob exist, which is all we wanted to know.


                              2. If at step 1. we discovered that we got less than 2 elements in the array, then we check whether we got one and if so we check whether that one exist, the usual way. We need to do this extra check in order to account for function arguments without glob chars, in which case the array contains only one, unexpanded, element.







                              share|improve this answer



















                              • 1





                                This is inefficient because $(..) launches a sub-shell.

                                – dolmen
                                Feb 24 '17 at 16:59













                              • @dolmen a sub-shell is just a process like any other. The accepted answer launches the ls command, which for all intent and purposes is as efficient (or inefficient) as a sub-shell is.

                                – Fabio A.
                                Mar 28 '17 at 9:31











                              • I've never written that the accepted answer is better and that I would have accepted if I had been the submitter.

                                – dolmen
                                Apr 13 '17 at 7:34











                              • Notice that the generalized method I explain in this very same answer doesn't use any subshell at all.

                                – Fabio A.
                                Apr 13 '17 at 11:21
















                              2












                              2








                              2







                              Here's a solution for your specific problem that doesn't require for loops or external commands like ls, find and the like.



                              if [ "$(echo xorg-x11-fonts*)" != "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
                              printf "BLAH"
                              fi


                              As you can see, it's just a tad more complicated than what you were hoping for, and relies on the fact that if the shell is not able to expand the glob, it means no files with that glob exist and echo will output the glob as is, which allows us to do a mere string comparison to check whether any of those files exist at all.



                              If we were to generalize the procedure, though, we should take into account the fact that files might contain spaces within their names and/or paths and that the glob char could rightfully expand to nothing (in your example, that would be the case of a file whose name is exactly xorg-x11-fonts).



                              This could be achieved by the following function, in bash.



                              function doesAnyFileExist {
                              local arg="$*"
                              local files=($arg)
                              [ ${#files[@]} -gt 1 ] || [ ${#files[@]} -eq 1 ] && [ -e "${files[0]}" ]
                              }


                              Going back to your example, it could be invoked like this.



                              if doesAnyFileExist "xorg-x11-fonts*"; then
                              printf "BLAH"
                              fi


                              Glob expansion should happen within the function itself for it to work properly, that's why I put the argument in quotes and that's what the first line in the function body is there for: so that any multiple arguments (which could be the result of a glob expansion outside the function, as well as a spurious parameter) would be coalesced into one. Another approach could be to raise an error if there's more than one argument, yet another could be to ignore all but the 1st argument.



                              The second line in the function body sets the files var to an array constituted by all the file names that the glob expanded to, one for each array element. It's fine if the file names contain spaces, each array element will contain the names as is, including the spaces.



                              The third line in the function body does two things:




                              1. It first checks whether there's more than one element in the array. If so, it means the glob surely got expanded to something (due to what we did on the 1st line), which in turn implies that at least one file matching the glob exist, which is all we wanted to know.


                              2. If at step 1. we discovered that we got less than 2 elements in the array, then we check whether we got one and if so we check whether that one exist, the usual way. We need to do this extra check in order to account for function arguments without glob chars, in which case the array contains only one, unexpanded, element.







                              share|improve this answer













                              Here's a solution for your specific problem that doesn't require for loops or external commands like ls, find and the like.



                              if [ "$(echo xorg-x11-fonts*)" != "xorg-x11-fonts*" ]; then
                              printf "BLAH"
                              fi


                              As you can see, it's just a tad more complicated than what you were hoping for, and relies on the fact that if the shell is not able to expand the glob, it means no files with that glob exist and echo will output the glob as is, which allows us to do a mere string comparison to check whether any of those files exist at all.



                              If we were to generalize the procedure, though, we should take into account the fact that files might contain spaces within their names and/or paths and that the glob char could rightfully expand to nothing (in your example, that would be the case of a file whose name is exactly xorg-x11-fonts).



                              This could be achieved by the following function, in bash.



                              function doesAnyFileExist {
                              local arg="$*"
                              local files=($arg)
                              [ ${#files[@]} -gt 1 ] || [ ${#files[@]} -eq 1 ] && [ -e "${files[0]}" ]
                              }


                              Going back to your example, it could be invoked like this.



                              if doesAnyFileExist "xorg-x11-fonts*"; then
                              printf "BLAH"
                              fi


                              Glob expansion should happen within the function itself for it to work properly, that's why I put the argument in quotes and that's what the first line in the function body is there for: so that any multiple arguments (which could be the result of a glob expansion outside the function, as well as a spurious parameter) would be coalesced into one. Another approach could be to raise an error if there's more than one argument, yet another could be to ignore all but the 1st argument.



                              The second line in the function body sets the files var to an array constituted by all the file names that the glob expanded to, one for each array element. It's fine if the file names contain spaces, each array element will contain the names as is, including the spaces.



                              The third line in the function body does two things:




                              1. It first checks whether there's more than one element in the array. If so, it means the glob surely got expanded to something (due to what we did on the 1st line), which in turn implies that at least one file matching the glob exist, which is all we wanted to know.


                              2. If at step 1. we discovered that we got less than 2 elements in the array, then we check whether we got one and if so we check whether that one exist, the usual way. We need to do this extra check in order to account for function arguments without glob chars, in which case the array contains only one, unexpanded, element.








                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered Nov 25 '16 at 15:32









                              Fabio A.Fabio A.

                              793719




                              793719








                              • 1





                                This is inefficient because $(..) launches a sub-shell.

                                – dolmen
                                Feb 24 '17 at 16:59













                              • @dolmen a sub-shell is just a process like any other. The accepted answer launches the ls command, which for all intent and purposes is as efficient (or inefficient) as a sub-shell is.

                                – Fabio A.
                                Mar 28 '17 at 9:31











                              • I've never written that the accepted answer is better and that I would have accepted if I had been the submitter.

                                – dolmen
                                Apr 13 '17 at 7:34











                              • Notice that the generalized method I explain in this very same answer doesn't use any subshell at all.

                                – Fabio A.
                                Apr 13 '17 at 11:21
















                              • 1





                                This is inefficient because $(..) launches a sub-shell.

                                – dolmen
                                Feb 24 '17 at 16:59













                              • @dolmen a sub-shell is just a process like any other. The accepted answer launches the ls command, which for all intent and purposes is as efficient (or inefficient) as a sub-shell is.

                                – Fabio A.
                                Mar 28 '17 at 9:31











                              • I've never written that the accepted answer is better and that I would have accepted if I had been the submitter.

                                – dolmen
                                Apr 13 '17 at 7:34











                              • Notice that the generalized method I explain in this very same answer doesn't use any subshell at all.

                                – Fabio A.
                                Apr 13 '17 at 11:21










                              1




                              1





                              This is inefficient because $(..) launches a sub-shell.

                              – dolmen
                              Feb 24 '17 at 16:59







                              This is inefficient because $(..) launches a sub-shell.

                              – dolmen
                              Feb 24 '17 at 16:59















                              @dolmen a sub-shell is just a process like any other. The accepted answer launches the ls command, which for all intent and purposes is as efficient (or inefficient) as a sub-shell is.

                              – Fabio A.
                              Mar 28 '17 at 9:31





                              @dolmen a sub-shell is just a process like any other. The accepted answer launches the ls command, which for all intent and purposes is as efficient (or inefficient) as a sub-shell is.

                              – Fabio A.
                              Mar 28 '17 at 9:31













                              I've never written that the accepted answer is better and that I would have accepted if I had been the submitter.

                              – dolmen
                              Apr 13 '17 at 7:34





                              I've never written that the accepted answer is better and that I would have accepted if I had been the submitter.

                              – dolmen
                              Apr 13 '17 at 7:34













                              Notice that the generalized method I explain in this very same answer doesn't use any subshell at all.

                              – Fabio A.
                              Apr 13 '17 at 11:21







                              Notice that the generalized method I explain in this very same answer doesn't use any subshell at all.

                              – Fabio A.
                              Apr 13 '17 at 11:21













                              1














                              I use this:



                              filescount=`ls xorg-x11-fonts* | awk 'END { print NR }'`  
                              if [ $filescount -gt 0 ]; then
                              blah
                              fi





                              share|improve this answer



















                              • 2





                                wc -l is more efficient than awk for this task.

                                – dolmen
                                Feb 24 '17 at 16:57






                              • 1





                                Counting the number of results is an antipattern anyway. Usually you simply want to see whether ls returned success or not (or better yet avoid ls too and use the shell's built-in functionality).

                                – tripleee
                                Sep 26 '17 at 9:10
















                              1














                              I use this:



                              filescount=`ls xorg-x11-fonts* | awk 'END { print NR }'`  
                              if [ $filescount -gt 0 ]; then
                              blah
                              fi





                              share|improve this answer



















                              • 2





                                wc -l is more efficient than awk for this task.

                                – dolmen
                                Feb 24 '17 at 16:57






                              • 1





                                Counting the number of results is an antipattern anyway. Usually you simply want to see whether ls returned success or not (or better yet avoid ls too and use the shell's built-in functionality).

                                – tripleee
                                Sep 26 '17 at 9:10














                              1












                              1








                              1







                              I use this:



                              filescount=`ls xorg-x11-fonts* | awk 'END { print NR }'`  
                              if [ $filescount -gt 0 ]; then
                              blah
                              fi





                              share|improve this answer













                              I use this:



                              filescount=`ls xorg-x11-fonts* | awk 'END { print NR }'`  
                              if [ $filescount -gt 0 ]; then
                              blah
                              fi






                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered Oct 21 '14 at 18:59









                              Alexandre Vr.Alexandre Vr.

                              191




                              191








                              • 2





                                wc -l is more efficient than awk for this task.

                                – dolmen
                                Feb 24 '17 at 16:57






                              • 1





                                Counting the number of results is an antipattern anyway. Usually you simply want to see whether ls returned success or not (or better yet avoid ls too and use the shell's built-in functionality).

                                – tripleee
                                Sep 26 '17 at 9:10














                              • 2





                                wc -l is more efficient than awk for this task.

                                – dolmen
                                Feb 24 '17 at 16:57






                              • 1





                                Counting the number of results is an antipattern anyway. Usually you simply want to see whether ls returned success or not (or better yet avoid ls too and use the shell's built-in functionality).

                                – tripleee
                                Sep 26 '17 at 9:10








                              2




                              2





                              wc -l is more efficient than awk for this task.

                              – dolmen
                              Feb 24 '17 at 16:57





                              wc -l is more efficient than awk for this task.

                              – dolmen
                              Feb 24 '17 at 16:57




                              1




                              1





                              Counting the number of results is an antipattern anyway. Usually you simply want to see whether ls returned success or not (or better yet avoid ls too and use the shell's built-in functionality).

                              – tripleee
                              Sep 26 '17 at 9:10





                              Counting the number of results is an antipattern anyway. Usually you simply want to see whether ls returned success or not (or better yet avoid ls too and use the shell's built-in functionality).

                              – tripleee
                              Sep 26 '17 at 9:10











                              1














                              IMHO it's better to use find always when testing for files, globs or directories. The stumbling block in doing so is find's exit status: 0 if all paths were traversed successfully, >0 otherwise. The expression you passed to find creates no echo in its exit code.



                              The following example tests if a directory has entries:



                              $ mkdir A
                              $ touch A/b
                              $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . && echo 'not empty'
                              not empty


                              When A has no files grep fails:



                              $ rm A/b
                              $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . || echo 'empty'
                              empty


                              When A does not exist grep fails again because find only prints to stderr:



                              $ rmdir A
                              $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . && echo 'not empty' || echo 'empty'
                              find: 'A': No such file or directory
                              empty


                              Replace -not -empty by any other find expression, but be careful if you -exec a command that prints to stdout. You may want to grep for a more specific expression in such cases.



                              This approach works nicely in shell scripts. The originally question was to look for the glob xorg-x11-fonts*:



                              if find -maxdepth 0 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -print | head -n1 | grep -q .
                              then
                              : the glob matched
                              else
                              : ...not
                              fi


                              Note that the else-branched is reached if xorg-x11-fonts* had not matched, or find encountered an error. To distinguish the case use $?.






                              share|improve this answer





















                              • 1





                                You probably meant -maxdepth 1 when using -name, since -maxdepth 0 will look at the current directory and not its contents.

                                – Chris Cogdon
                                Jul 29 '16 at 23:40
















                              1














                              IMHO it's better to use find always when testing for files, globs or directories. The stumbling block in doing so is find's exit status: 0 if all paths were traversed successfully, >0 otherwise. The expression you passed to find creates no echo in its exit code.



                              The following example tests if a directory has entries:



                              $ mkdir A
                              $ touch A/b
                              $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . && echo 'not empty'
                              not empty


                              When A has no files grep fails:



                              $ rm A/b
                              $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . || echo 'empty'
                              empty


                              When A does not exist grep fails again because find only prints to stderr:



                              $ rmdir A
                              $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . && echo 'not empty' || echo 'empty'
                              find: 'A': No such file or directory
                              empty


                              Replace -not -empty by any other find expression, but be careful if you -exec a command that prints to stdout. You may want to grep for a more specific expression in such cases.



                              This approach works nicely in shell scripts. The originally question was to look for the glob xorg-x11-fonts*:



                              if find -maxdepth 0 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -print | head -n1 | grep -q .
                              then
                              : the glob matched
                              else
                              : ...not
                              fi


                              Note that the else-branched is reached if xorg-x11-fonts* had not matched, or find encountered an error. To distinguish the case use $?.






                              share|improve this answer





















                              • 1





                                You probably meant -maxdepth 1 when using -name, since -maxdepth 0 will look at the current directory and not its contents.

                                – Chris Cogdon
                                Jul 29 '16 at 23:40














                              1












                              1








                              1







                              IMHO it's better to use find always when testing for files, globs or directories. The stumbling block in doing so is find's exit status: 0 if all paths were traversed successfully, >0 otherwise. The expression you passed to find creates no echo in its exit code.



                              The following example tests if a directory has entries:



                              $ mkdir A
                              $ touch A/b
                              $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . && echo 'not empty'
                              not empty


                              When A has no files grep fails:



                              $ rm A/b
                              $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . || echo 'empty'
                              empty


                              When A does not exist grep fails again because find only prints to stderr:



                              $ rmdir A
                              $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . && echo 'not empty' || echo 'empty'
                              find: 'A': No such file or directory
                              empty


                              Replace -not -empty by any other find expression, but be careful if you -exec a command that prints to stdout. You may want to grep for a more specific expression in such cases.



                              This approach works nicely in shell scripts. The originally question was to look for the glob xorg-x11-fonts*:



                              if find -maxdepth 0 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -print | head -n1 | grep -q .
                              then
                              : the glob matched
                              else
                              : ...not
                              fi


                              Note that the else-branched is reached if xorg-x11-fonts* had not matched, or find encountered an error. To distinguish the case use $?.






                              share|improve this answer















                              IMHO it's better to use find always when testing for files, globs or directories. The stumbling block in doing so is find's exit status: 0 if all paths were traversed successfully, >0 otherwise. The expression you passed to find creates no echo in its exit code.



                              The following example tests if a directory has entries:



                              $ mkdir A
                              $ touch A/b
                              $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . && echo 'not empty'
                              not empty


                              When A has no files grep fails:



                              $ rm A/b
                              $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . || echo 'empty'
                              empty


                              When A does not exist grep fails again because find only prints to stderr:



                              $ rmdir A
                              $ find A -maxdepth 0 -not -empty -print | head -n1 | grep -q . && echo 'not empty' || echo 'empty'
                              find: 'A': No such file or directory
                              empty


                              Replace -not -empty by any other find expression, but be careful if you -exec a command that prints to stdout. You may want to grep for a more specific expression in such cases.



                              This approach works nicely in shell scripts. The originally question was to look for the glob xorg-x11-fonts*:



                              if find -maxdepth 0 -name 'xorg-x11-fonts*' -print | head -n1 | grep -q .
                              then
                              : the glob matched
                              else
                              : ...not
                              fi


                              Note that the else-branched is reached if xorg-x11-fonts* had not matched, or find encountered an error. To distinguish the case use $?.







                              share|improve this answer














                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer








                              edited Mar 20 '16 at 11:37

























                              answered Mar 20 '16 at 10:38









                              Andreas SpindlerAndreas Spindler

                              4,50423230




                              4,50423230








                              • 1





                                You probably meant -maxdepth 1 when using -name, since -maxdepth 0 will look at the current directory and not its contents.

                                – Chris Cogdon
                                Jul 29 '16 at 23:40














                              • 1





                                You probably meant -maxdepth 1 when using -name, since -maxdepth 0 will look at the current directory and not its contents.

                                – Chris Cogdon
                                Jul 29 '16 at 23:40








                              1




                              1





                              You probably meant -maxdepth 1 when using -name, since -maxdepth 0 will look at the current directory and not its contents.

                              – Chris Cogdon
                              Jul 29 '16 at 23:40





                              You probably meant -maxdepth 1 when using -name, since -maxdepth 0 will look at the current directory and not its contents.

                              – Chris Cogdon
                              Jul 29 '16 at 23:40











                              1














                              if [ `ls path1/* path2/* 2> /dev/null | wc -l` -ne 0 ]; then echo ok; else echo no; fi





                              share|improve this answer




























                                1














                                if [ `ls path1/* path2/* 2> /dev/null | wc -l` -ne 0 ]; then echo ok; else echo no; fi





                                share|improve this answer


























                                  1












                                  1








                                  1







                                  if [ `ls path1/* path2/* 2> /dev/null | wc -l` -ne 0 ]; then echo ok; else echo no; fi





                                  share|improve this answer













                                  if [ `ls path1/* path2/* 2> /dev/null | wc -l` -ne 0 ]; then echo ok; else echo no; fi






                                  share|improve this answer












                                  share|improve this answer



                                  share|improve this answer










                                  answered Oct 2 '17 at 3:09









                                  Dan EliasDan Elias

                                  111




                                  111























                                      0














                                      Try this



                                      fileTarget="xorg-x11-fonts*"

                                      filesFound=$(ls $fileTarget) # 2014-04-03 edit 2: removed dbl-qts around $(...)


                                      edit 2014-04-03 (removed dbl-quotes and added test file 'Charlie 22.html' (2 spaces)



                                      case ${filesFound} in
                                      "" ) printf "NO files found for target=${fileTarget}n" ;;
                                      * ) printf "FileTarget Files found=${filesFound}n" ;;
                                      esac


                                      Test



                                      fileTarget="*.html"  # where I have some html docs in the current dir

                                      FileTarget Files found=Baby21.html
                                      baby22.html
                                      charlie 22.html
                                      charlie21.html
                                      charlie22.html
                                      charlie23.html

                                      fileTarget="xorg-x11-fonts*"

                                      NO files found for target=xorg-x11-fonts*


                                      Note that this only works in the current directory, or where the var fileTarget includes the path you are want to inspect.






                                      share|improve this answer


























                                      • Your code will fail if fileTarget contains whitespace (e.g., fileTarget="my file*").

                                        – Richard Hansen
                                        Jun 17 '11 at 6:34











                                      • @RichardHansen what the solution when there is whitespace?

                                        – Ross
                                        Mar 28 '14 at 22:57











                                      • @Ross: Use the accepted answer: if ls "my file"* >/dev/null 2>&1; then ...

                                        – Richard Hansen
                                        Mar 29 '14 at 2:59











                                      • @RichardHansen thanks, sorry – not working for me. Have it fixed now .

                                        – Ross
                                        Apr 2 '14 at 9:44






                                      • 1





                                        @Ross, I've added an edit to mine that should work with files with spaces. Basically case "${filesFound}" in .... . Good luck to all.

                                        – shellter
                                        Apr 2 '14 at 11:23
















                                      0














                                      Try this



                                      fileTarget="xorg-x11-fonts*"

                                      filesFound=$(ls $fileTarget) # 2014-04-03 edit 2: removed dbl-qts around $(...)


                                      edit 2014-04-03 (removed dbl-quotes and added test file 'Charlie 22.html' (2 spaces)



                                      case ${filesFound} in
                                      "" ) printf "NO files found for target=${fileTarget}n" ;;
                                      * ) printf "FileTarget Files found=${filesFound}n" ;;
                                      esac


                                      Test



                                      fileTarget="*.html"  # where I have some html docs in the current dir

                                      FileTarget Files found=Baby21.html
                                      baby22.html
                                      charlie 22.html
                                      charlie21.html
                                      charlie22.html
                                      charlie23.html

                                      fileTarget="xorg-x11-fonts*"

                                      NO files found for target=xorg-x11-fonts*


                                      Note that this only works in the current directory, or where the var fileTarget includes the path you are want to inspect.






                                      share|improve this answer


























                                      • Your code will fail if fileTarget contains whitespace (e.g., fileTarget="my file*").

                                        – Richard Hansen
                                        Jun 17 '11 at 6:34











                                      • @RichardHansen what the solution when there is whitespace?

                                        – Ross
                                        Mar 28 '14 at 22:57











                                      • @Ross: Use the accepted answer: if ls "my file"* >/dev/null 2>&1; then ...

                                        – Richard Hansen
                                        Mar 29 '14 at 2:59











                                      • @RichardHansen thanks, sorry – not working for me. Have it fixed now .

                                        – Ross
                                        Apr 2 '14 at 9:44






                                      • 1





                                        @Ross, I've added an edit to mine that should work with files with spaces. Basically case "${filesFound}" in .... . Good luck to all.

                                        – shellter
                                        Apr 2 '14 at 11:23














                                      0












                                      0








                                      0







                                      Try this



                                      fileTarget="xorg-x11-fonts*"

                                      filesFound=$(ls $fileTarget) # 2014-04-03 edit 2: removed dbl-qts around $(...)


                                      edit 2014-04-03 (removed dbl-quotes and added test file 'Charlie 22.html' (2 spaces)



                                      case ${filesFound} in
                                      "" ) printf "NO files found for target=${fileTarget}n" ;;
                                      * ) printf "FileTarget Files found=${filesFound}n" ;;
                                      esac


                                      Test



                                      fileTarget="*.html"  # where I have some html docs in the current dir

                                      FileTarget Files found=Baby21.html
                                      baby22.html
                                      charlie 22.html
                                      charlie21.html
                                      charlie22.html
                                      charlie23.html

                                      fileTarget="xorg-x11-fonts*"

                                      NO files found for target=xorg-x11-fonts*


                                      Note that this only works in the current directory, or where the var fileTarget includes the path you are want to inspect.






                                      share|improve this answer















                                      Try this



                                      fileTarget="xorg-x11-fonts*"

                                      filesFound=$(ls $fileTarget) # 2014-04-03 edit 2: removed dbl-qts around $(...)


                                      edit 2014-04-03 (removed dbl-quotes and added test file 'Charlie 22.html' (2 spaces)



                                      case ${filesFound} in
                                      "" ) printf "NO files found for target=${fileTarget}n" ;;
                                      * ) printf "FileTarget Files found=${filesFound}n" ;;
                                      esac


                                      Test



                                      fileTarget="*.html"  # where I have some html docs in the current dir

                                      FileTarget Files found=Baby21.html
                                      baby22.html
                                      charlie 22.html
                                      charlie21.html
                                      charlie22.html
                                      charlie23.html

                                      fileTarget="xorg-x11-fonts*"

                                      NO files found for target=xorg-x11-fonts*


                                      Note that this only works in the current directory, or where the var fileTarget includes the path you are want to inspect.







                                      share|improve this answer














                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer








                                      edited Apr 3 '14 at 3:27

























                                      answered Jun 15 '11 at 20:16









                                      shelltershellter

                                      29.3k66075




                                      29.3k66075













                                      • Your code will fail if fileTarget contains whitespace (e.g., fileTarget="my file*").

                                        – Richard Hansen
                                        Jun 17 '11 at 6:34











                                      • @RichardHansen what the solution when there is whitespace?

                                        – Ross
                                        Mar 28 '14 at 22:57











                                      • @Ross: Use the accepted answer: if ls "my file"* >/dev/null 2>&1; then ...

                                        – Richard Hansen
                                        Mar 29 '14 at 2:59











                                      • @RichardHansen thanks, sorry – not working for me. Have it fixed now .

                                        – Ross
                                        Apr 2 '14 at 9:44






                                      • 1





                                        @Ross, I've added an edit to mine that should work with files with spaces. Basically case "${filesFound}" in .... . Good luck to all.

                                        – shellter
                                        Apr 2 '14 at 11:23



















                                      • Your code will fail if fileTarget contains whitespace (e.g., fileTarget="my file*").

                                        – Richard Hansen
                                        Jun 17 '11 at 6:34











                                      • @RichardHansen what the solution when there is whitespace?

                                        – Ross
                                        Mar 28 '14 at 22:57











                                      • @Ross: Use the accepted answer: if ls "my file"* >/dev/null 2>&1; then ...

                                        – Richard Hansen
                                        Mar 29 '14 at 2:59











                                      • @RichardHansen thanks, sorry – not working for me. Have it fixed now .

                                        – Ross
                                        Apr 2 '14 at 9:44






                                      • 1





                                        @Ross, I've added an edit to mine that should work with files with spaces. Basically case "${filesFound}" in .... . Good luck to all.

                                        – shellter
                                        Apr 2 '14 at 11:23

















                                      Your code will fail if fileTarget contains whitespace (e.g., fileTarget="my file*").

                                      – Richard Hansen
                                      Jun 17 '11 at 6:34





                                      Your code will fail if fileTarget contains whitespace (e.g., fileTarget="my file*").

                                      – Richard Hansen
                                      Jun 17 '11 at 6:34













                                      @RichardHansen what the solution when there is whitespace?

                                      – Ross
                                      Mar 28 '14 at 22:57





                                      @RichardHansen what the solution when there is whitespace?

                                      – Ross
                                      Mar 28 '14 at 22:57













                                      @Ross: Use the accepted answer: if ls "my file"* >/dev/null 2>&1; then ...

                                      – Richard Hansen
                                      Mar 29 '14 at 2:59





                                      @Ross: Use the accepted answer: if ls "my file"* >/dev/null 2>&1; then ...

                                      – Richard Hansen
                                      Mar 29 '14 at 2:59













                                      @RichardHansen thanks, sorry – not working for me. Have it fixed now .

                                      – Ross
                                      Apr 2 '14 at 9:44





                                      @RichardHansen thanks, sorry – not working for me. Have it fixed now .

                                      – Ross
                                      Apr 2 '14 at 9:44




                                      1




                                      1





                                      @Ross, I've added an edit to mine that should work with files with spaces. Basically case "${filesFound}" in .... . Good luck to all.

                                      – shellter
                                      Apr 2 '14 at 11:23





                                      @Ross, I've added an edit to mine that should work with files with spaces. Basically case "${filesFound}" in .... . Good luck to all.

                                      – shellter
                                      Apr 2 '14 at 11:23











                                      0














                                      How about



                                      if ls -l  | grep -q 'xorg-x11-fonts.*' # grep needs a regex, not a shell glob
                                      then
                                      # do something
                                      else
                                      # do something else
                                      fi





                                      share|improve this answer



















                                      • 1





                                        No, don't use ls in scripts and the .* wildcard is redundant (you probably meant grep -q '^xorg-x1-fonts').

                                        – tripleee
                                        Sep 26 '17 at 9:08











                                      • why not parse ls

                                        – phuclv
                                        May 31 '18 at 8:48
















                                      0














                                      How about



                                      if ls -l  | grep -q 'xorg-x11-fonts.*' # grep needs a regex, not a shell glob
                                      then
                                      # do something
                                      else
                                      # do something else
                                      fi





                                      share|improve this answer



















                                      • 1





                                        No, don't use ls in scripts and the .* wildcard is redundant (you probably meant grep -q '^xorg-x1-fonts').

                                        – tripleee
                                        Sep 26 '17 at 9:08











                                      • why not parse ls

                                        – phuclv
                                        May 31 '18 at 8:48














                                      0












                                      0








                                      0







                                      How about



                                      if ls -l  | grep -q 'xorg-x11-fonts.*' # grep needs a regex, not a shell glob
                                      then
                                      # do something
                                      else
                                      # do something else
                                      fi





                                      share|improve this answer













                                      How about



                                      if ls -l  | grep -q 'xorg-x11-fonts.*' # grep needs a regex, not a shell glob
                                      then
                                      # do something
                                      else
                                      # do something else
                                      fi






                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered Jun 23 '17 at 2:08









                                      abcabc

                                      8,8292489147




                                      8,8292489147








                                      • 1





                                        No, don't use ls in scripts and the .* wildcard is redundant (you probably meant grep -q '^xorg-x1-fonts').

                                        – tripleee
                                        Sep 26 '17 at 9:08











                                      • why not parse ls

                                        – phuclv
                                        May 31 '18 at 8:48














                                      • 1





                                        No, don't use ls in scripts and the .* wildcard is redundant (you probably meant grep -q '^xorg-x1-fonts').

                                        – tripleee
                                        Sep 26 '17 at 9:08











                                      • why not parse ls

                                        – phuclv
                                        May 31 '18 at 8:48








                                      1




                                      1





                                      No, don't use ls in scripts and the .* wildcard is redundant (you probably meant grep -q '^xorg-x1-fonts').

                                      – tripleee
                                      Sep 26 '17 at 9:08





                                      No, don't use ls in scripts and the .* wildcard is redundant (you probably meant grep -q '^xorg-x1-fonts').

                                      – tripleee
                                      Sep 26 '17 at 9:08













                                      why not parse ls

                                      – phuclv
                                      May 31 '18 at 8:48





                                      why not parse ls

                                      – phuclv
                                      May 31 '18 at 8:48











                                      0














                                      If there is a huge amount of files on a network folder using the wildcard is questionable (speed, or command line arguments overflow).



                                      I ended up with:



                                      if [ -n "$(find somedir/that_may_not_exist_yet -maxdepth 1 -name *.ext -print -quit)" ] ; then
                                      echo Such file exists
                                      fi





                                      share|improve this answer






























                                        0














                                        If there is a huge amount of files on a network folder using the wildcard is questionable (speed, or command line arguments overflow).



                                        I ended up with:



                                        if [ -n "$(find somedir/that_may_not_exist_yet -maxdepth 1 -name *.ext -print -quit)" ] ; then
                                        echo Such file exists
                                        fi





                                        share|improve this answer




























                                          0












                                          0








                                          0







                                          If there is a huge amount of files on a network folder using the wildcard is questionable (speed, or command line arguments overflow).



                                          I ended up with:



                                          if [ -n "$(find somedir/that_may_not_exist_yet -maxdepth 1 -name *.ext -print -quit)" ] ; then
                                          echo Such file exists
                                          fi





                                          share|improve this answer















                                          If there is a huge amount of files on a network folder using the wildcard is questionable (speed, or command line arguments overflow).



                                          I ended up with:



                                          if [ -n "$(find somedir/that_may_not_exist_yet -maxdepth 1 -name *.ext -print -quit)" ] ; then
                                          echo Such file exists
                                          fi






                                          share|improve this answer














                                          share|improve this answer



                                          share|improve this answer








                                          edited Sep 2 '17 at 8:00

























                                          answered Sep 2 '17 at 7:49









                                          luxigoluxigo

                                          9015




                                          9015























                                              0














                                              You can also cut other files out



                                              if [ -e $( echo $1 | cut -d" " -f1 ) ] ; then
                                              ...
                                              fi





                                              share|improve this answer


























                                              • this would be slow because of the subshell. And what if the file name contains space?

                                                – phuclv
                                                May 31 '18 at 8:49
















                                              0














                                              You can also cut other files out



                                              if [ -e $( echo $1 | cut -d" " -f1 ) ] ; then
                                              ...
                                              fi





                                              share|improve this answer


























                                              • this would be slow because of the subshell. And what if the file name contains space?

                                                – phuclv
                                                May 31 '18 at 8:49














                                              0












                                              0








                                              0







                                              You can also cut other files out



                                              if [ -e $( echo $1 | cut -d" " -f1 ) ] ; then
                                              ...
                                              fi





                                              share|improve this answer















                                              You can also cut other files out



                                              if [ -e $( echo $1 | cut -d" " -f1 ) ] ; then
                                              ...
                                              fi






                                              share|improve this answer














                                              share|improve this answer



                                              share|improve this answer








                                              edited Oct 10 '17 at 20:43









                                              JakeGould

                                              20.8k85076




                                              20.8k85076










                                              answered Oct 2 '17 at 14:25









                                              McCloudMcCloud

                                              12




                                              12













                                              • this would be slow because of the subshell. And what if the file name contains space?

                                                – phuclv
                                                May 31 '18 at 8:49



















                                              • this would be slow because of the subshell. And what if the file name contains space?

                                                – phuclv
                                                May 31 '18 at 8:49

















                                              this would be slow because of the subshell. And what if the file name contains space?

                                              – phuclv
                                              May 31 '18 at 8:49





                                              this would be slow because of the subshell. And what if the file name contains space?

                                              – phuclv
                                              May 31 '18 at 8:49











                                              0














                                              Using new fancy shmancy features in ksh, bash, and zsh shells (this example doesn't handle spaces in filenames):



                                              # Declare a regular array (-A will declare an associative array. Kewl!)
                                              declare -a myarray=( /mydir/tmp*.txt )
                                              array_length=${#myarray[@]}

                                              # Not found if the 1st element of the array is the unexpanded string
                                              # (ie, if it contains a "*")
                                              if [[ ${myarray[0]} =~ [*] ]] ; then
                                              echo "No files not found"
                                              elif [ $array_length -eq 1 ] ; then
                                              echo "File was found"
                                              else
                                              echo "Files were found"
                                              fi

                                              for myfile in ${myarray[@]}
                                              do
                                              echo "$myfile"
                                              done


                                              Yes, this does smell like Perl. Glad I didn't step in it ;)






                                              share|improve this answer




























                                                0














                                                Using new fancy shmancy features in ksh, bash, and zsh shells (this example doesn't handle spaces in filenames):



                                                # Declare a regular array (-A will declare an associative array. Kewl!)
                                                declare -a myarray=( /mydir/tmp*.txt )
                                                array_length=${#myarray[@]}

                                                # Not found if the 1st element of the array is the unexpanded string
                                                # (ie, if it contains a "*")
                                                if [[ ${myarray[0]} =~ [*] ]] ; then
                                                echo "No files not found"
                                                elif [ $array_length -eq 1 ] ; then
                                                echo "File was found"
                                                else
                                                echo "Files were found"
                                                fi

                                                for myfile in ${myarray[@]}
                                                do
                                                echo "$myfile"
                                                done


                                                Yes, this does smell like Perl. Glad I didn't step in it ;)






                                                share|improve this answer


























                                                  0












                                                  0








                                                  0







                                                  Using new fancy shmancy features in ksh, bash, and zsh shells (this example doesn't handle spaces in filenames):



                                                  # Declare a regular array (-A will declare an associative array. Kewl!)
                                                  declare -a myarray=( /mydir/tmp*.txt )
                                                  array_length=${#myarray[@]}

                                                  # Not found if the 1st element of the array is the unexpanded string
                                                  # (ie, if it contains a "*")
                                                  if [[ ${myarray[0]} =~ [*] ]] ; then
                                                  echo "No files not found"
                                                  elif [ $array_length -eq 1 ] ; then
                                                  echo "File was found"
                                                  else
                                                  echo "Files were found"
                                                  fi

                                                  for myfile in ${myarray[@]}
                                                  do
                                                  echo "$myfile"
                                                  done


                                                  Yes, this does smell like Perl. Glad I didn't step in it ;)






                                                  share|improve this answer













                                                  Using new fancy shmancy features in ksh, bash, and zsh shells (this example doesn't handle spaces in filenames):



                                                  # Declare a regular array (-A will declare an associative array. Kewl!)
                                                  declare -a myarray=( /mydir/tmp*.txt )
                                                  array_length=${#myarray[@]}

                                                  # Not found if the 1st element of the array is the unexpanded string
                                                  # (ie, if it contains a "*")
                                                  if [[ ${myarray[0]} =~ [*] ]] ; then
                                                  echo "No files not found"
                                                  elif [ $array_length -eq 1 ] ; then
                                                  echo "File was found"
                                                  else
                                                  echo "Files were found"
                                                  fi

                                                  for myfile in ${myarray[@]}
                                                  do
                                                  echo "$myfile"
                                                  done


                                                  Yes, this does smell like Perl. Glad I didn't step in it ;)







                                                  share|improve this answer












                                                  share|improve this answer



                                                  share|improve this answer










                                                  answered Feb 22 '18 at 16:12









                                                  Ben SladeBen Slade

                                                  1148




                                                  1148























                                                      0














                                                      Found a couple of neat solutions worth sharing. The first still suffers from "this will break if there's too many matches" problem:



                                                      pat="yourpattern*" matches=($pat) ; [[ "$matches" != "$pat" ]] && echo "found"


                                                      (Recall that if you use an array without the [ ] syntax, you get the first element of the array.)



                                                      If you have "shopt -s nullglob" in your script, you could simply do:



                                                      matches=(yourpattern*) ; [[ "$matches" ]] && echo "found"


                                                      Now, if it's possible to have a ton of files in a directory, you're pretty well much stuck with using find:



                                                      find /path/to/dir -maxdepth 1 -type f -name 'yourpattern*' | grep -q '.' && echo 'found'





                                                      share|improve this answer




























                                                        0














                                                        Found a couple of neat solutions worth sharing. The first still suffers from "this will break if there's too many matches" problem:



                                                        pat="yourpattern*" matches=($pat) ; [[ "$matches" != "$pat" ]] && echo "found"


                                                        (Recall that if you use an array without the [ ] syntax, you get the first element of the array.)



                                                        If you have "shopt -s nullglob" in your script, you could simply do:



                                                        matches=(yourpattern*) ; [[ "$matches" ]] && echo "found"


                                                        Now, if it's possible to have a ton of files in a directory, you're pretty well much stuck with using find:



                                                        find /path/to/dir -maxdepth 1 -type f -name 'yourpattern*' | grep -q '.' && echo 'found'





                                                        share|improve this answer


























                                                          0












                                                          0








                                                          0







                                                          Found a couple of neat solutions worth sharing. The first still suffers from "this will break if there's too many matches" problem:



                                                          pat="yourpattern*" matches=($pat) ; [[ "$matches" != "$pat" ]] && echo "found"


                                                          (Recall that if you use an array without the [ ] syntax, you get the first element of the array.)



                                                          If you have "shopt -s nullglob" in your script, you could simply do:



                                                          matches=(yourpattern*) ; [[ "$matches" ]] && echo "found"


                                                          Now, if it's possible to have a ton of files in a directory, you're pretty well much stuck with using find:



                                                          find /path/to/dir -maxdepth 1 -type f -name 'yourpattern*' | grep -q '.' && echo 'found'





                                                          share|improve this answer













                                                          Found a couple of neat solutions worth sharing. The first still suffers from "this will break if there's too many matches" problem:



                                                          pat="yourpattern*" matches=($pat) ; [[ "$matches" != "$pat" ]] && echo "found"


                                                          (Recall that if you use an array without the [ ] syntax, you get the first element of the array.)



                                                          If you have "shopt -s nullglob" in your script, you could simply do:



                                                          matches=(yourpattern*) ; [[ "$matches" ]] && echo "found"


                                                          Now, if it's possible to have a ton of files in a directory, you're pretty well much stuck with using find:



                                                          find /path/to/dir -maxdepth 1 -type f -name 'yourpattern*' | grep -q '.' && echo 'found'






                                                          share|improve this answer












                                                          share|improve this answer



                                                          share|improve this answer










                                                          answered Mar 9 '18 at 21:43









                                                          Chris CogdonChris Cogdon

                                                          3,35222426




                                                          3,35222426























                                                              -15














                                                              man test



                                                              if [ -e file ]; then
                                                              ...
                                                              fi


                                                              will work for dirfile.



                                                              regards






                                                              share|improve this answer



















                                                              • 9





                                                                This will not work with wildcards (which is what is asked in this question). If it matches more than one file you will get bash: [: too many arguments

                                                                – user000001
                                                                Apr 17 '13 at 13:28






                                                              • 1





                                                                A little unfair as this works very well on Solaris........

                                                                – SnazzyBootMan
                                                                Oct 9 '15 at 14:47











                                                              • heh, old post, thanks for the support Chris - i was indeed working with Solaris back then as well.

                                                                – Shokodemon
                                                                Sep 24 '17 at 13:09
















                                                              -15














                                                              man test



                                                              if [ -e file ]; then
                                                              ...
                                                              fi


                                                              will work for dirfile.



                                                              regards






                                                              share|improve this answer



















                                                              • 9





                                                                This will not work with wildcards (which is what is asked in this question). If it matches more than one file you will get bash: [: too many arguments

                                                                – user000001
                                                                Apr 17 '13 at 13:28






                                                              • 1





                                                                A little unfair as this works very well on Solaris........

                                                                – SnazzyBootMan
                                                                Oct 9 '15 at 14:47











                                                              • heh, old post, thanks for the support Chris - i was indeed working with Solaris back then as well.

                                                                – Shokodemon
                                                                Sep 24 '17 at 13:09














                                                              -15












                                                              -15








                                                              -15







                                                              man test



                                                              if [ -e file ]; then
                                                              ...
                                                              fi


                                                              will work for dirfile.



                                                              regards






                                                              share|improve this answer













                                                              man test



                                                              if [ -e file ]; then
                                                              ...
                                                              fi


                                                              will work for dirfile.



                                                              regards







                                                              share|improve this answer












                                                              share|improve this answer



                                                              share|improve this answer










                                                              answered Apr 16 '13 at 22:02









                                                              ShokodemonShokodemon

                                                              93




                                                              93








                                                              • 9





                                                                This will not work with wildcards (which is what is asked in this question). If it matches more than one file you will get bash: [: too many arguments

                                                                – user000001
                                                                Apr 17 '13 at 13:28






                                                              • 1





                                                                A little unfair as this works very well on Solaris........

                                                                – SnazzyBootMan
                                                                Oct 9 '15 at 14:47











                                                              • heh, old post, thanks for the support Chris - i was indeed working with Solaris back then as well.

                                                                – Shokodemon
                                                                Sep 24 '17 at 13:09














                                                              • 9





                                                                This will not work with wildcards (which is what is asked in this question). If it matches more than one file you will get bash: [: too many arguments

                                                                – user000001
                                                                Apr 17 '13 at 13:28






                                                              • 1





                                                                A little unfair as this works very well on Solaris........

                                                                – SnazzyBootMan
                                                                Oct 9 '15 at 14:47











                                                              • heh, old post, thanks for the support Chris - i was indeed working with Solaris back then as well.

                                                                – Shokodemon
                                                                Sep 24 '17 at 13:09








                                                              9




                                                              9





                                                              This will not work with wildcards (which is what is asked in this question). If it matches more than one file you will get bash: [: too many arguments

                                                              – user000001
                                                              Apr 17 '13 at 13:28





                                                              This will not work with wildcards (which is what is asked in this question). If it matches more than one file you will get bash: [: too many arguments

                                                              – user000001
                                                              Apr 17 '13 at 13:28




                                                              1




                                                              1





                                                              A little unfair as this works very well on Solaris........

                                                              – SnazzyBootMan
                                                              Oct 9 '15 at 14:47





                                                              A little unfair as this works very well on Solaris........

                                                              – SnazzyBootMan
                                                              Oct 9 '15 at 14:47













                                                              heh, old post, thanks for the support Chris - i was indeed working with Solaris back then as well.

                                                              – Shokodemon
                                                              Sep 24 '17 at 13:09





                                                              heh, old post, thanks for the support Chris - i was indeed working with Solaris back then as well.

                                                              – Shokodemon
                                                              Sep 24 '17 at 13:09



                                                              Popular posts from this blog

                                                              Bressuire

                                                              Vorschmack

                                                              Quarantine