chore(remix-dev/cli): simplify validateNewProjectPath in create command

[XiNiHa]

Removes a dead branch found inside the CLI code for validating project directories.

[remix-cla-bot]

Hi @XiNiHa,

Welcome, and thank you for contributing to Remix!

Before we consider your pull request, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement (CLA). We require this only once.

You may review the CLA and sign it by adding your name to contributors.yml.

Once the CLA is signed, the CLA Signed label will be added to the pull request.

If you have already signed the CLA and received this response in error, or if you have any questions, please contact us at hello@remix.run.

Thanks!

- The Remix team

[remix-cla-bot]

Thank you for signing the Contributor License Agreement. Let's get this merged! 🥳

[MichaelDeBoey]

@XiNiHa Code changes go against dev branch. Please rebase your branch against latest dev & make sure to fix all tests.

[XiNiHa]

Not sure if I did it right or not, but tried to do what you've requested

[MichaelDeBoey]

@XiNiHa I just looked into your PR and you're indeed removing dead code.
I however think we should only move the return into the contents.length check, as that's what would be intended I think.

[XiNiHa]

@MichaelDeBoey The diff is a bit confusing, but the code does the same thing (I just moved the contents part into the if conditions)

[MichaelDeBoey]

@XiNiHa You also removed one of the possible errors.
I think you should revert that.

[XiNiHa]

@MichaelDeBoey It was impossible to hit that error. The condition ((await fse.pathExists(projectDir)) && (await fse.stat(projectDir)).isDirectory()) was same for two ifs, and the first if throws when contents.length > 0, and returned otherwise. Therefore it had no chance to hit the latter error, since the second if will never be visited. I believe that was intended to return on !(contents.length > 0) since it's safe to override the contents inside the directory in that case. I'm very sure that the code is functioning exactly same.

[MichaelDeBoey]

@XiNiHa The second one was indeed never hit, but I'm quite certain that was never @kentcdodds' intention in #2655.

Since that wasn't his intention, the return should move 1 line higher to get the intended code.

[XiNiHa]

@MichaelDeBoey I guess this is what you want, but I'm still not sure if it's a good idea to error when users try to create a project on an empty directory.

[MichaelDeBoey]

Let's ask @kentcdodds what his intentions were to be certain of it

[kentcdodds]

Thank you!