pkg/endpoint: Simplify search for C header file during restore

[pchaigno]

Since we know the C header filename, we don't need to list the endpoint directory's content. We can simply check if the file exists.

Extracted from the host firewall branch.

@aanm Do you remember if there was a reason for listing the directory content instead of checking if the file exists? I feel like I'm missing something here. Commit 2365922 introduced this code.

[aanm]

Since we know the C header filename, we don't need to list the endpoint directory's content. We can simply check if the file exists.

Extracted from the host firewall branch.

@aanm Do you remember if there was a reason for listing the directory content instead of checking if the file exists? I feel like I'm missing something here. Commit 2365922 introduced this code.

@pchaigno I could never get to the bottom of it but it is as it sounds in the comment. The first "read" would return os.FileNotFound, but not the second attempt. That's why I kept it just to be safe, it doesn't hurt try reading the same file twice if the file didn't exist in the first place.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.005%) to 44.643% when pulling e58d8d8 on pr/pchaigno/simplify-header-search-during-restore into 531e61f on master.

[aanm]

testing

[pchaigno]

@aanm Do you remember if there was a reason for listing the directory content instead of checking if the file exists? I feel like I'm missing something here. Commit 2365922 introduced this code.

@pchaigno I could never get to the bottom of it but it is as it sounds in the comment. The first "read" would return os.FileNotFound, but not the second attempt. That's why I kept it just to be safe, it doesn't hurt try reading the same file twice if the file didn't exist in the first place.

I think we're talking about two different things. I was wondering if there was a special reason for listing the content instead of checking if the file exists. The second listing of the directory was introduced later. Checking directly if the file exists should hopefully remove the need for that second listing.

[christarazi]

LGTM, assuming @aanm's comment is addressed

[pchaigno]

test-me-please