Re: [PATCH 5/5] test-run-command: Increase test coverage

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  t/t0061-run-command.sh | 16 +++++++++++++---
>  test-run-command.c     | 12 ++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t0061-run-command.sh b/t/t0061-run-command.sh
> index 0af77cd..f27ada7 100755
> --- a/t/t0061-run-command.sh
> +++ b/t/t0061-run-command.sh
> @@ -62,8 +62,18 @@ Hello
>  World
>  EOF
>  
> -test_expect_success 'run_command runs in parallel' '
> -	test-run-command run-command-parallel-4 sh -c "printf \"%s\n%s\n\" Hello World" 2>actual &&
> +test_expect_success 'run_command runs in parallel with more jobs available than tasks' '
> +	test-run-command run-command-parallel 5 sh -c "printf \"%s\n%s\n\" Hello World" 2>actual &&
> +	test_cmp expect actual
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'run_command runs in parallel with as many jobs as tasks' '
> +	test-run-command run-command-parallel 4 sh -c "printf \"%s\n%s\n\" Hello World" 2>actual &&
> +	test_cmp expect actual
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'run_command runs in parallel with more tasks than jobs available' '
> +	test-run-command run-command-parallel 3 sh -c "printf \"%s\n%s\n\" Hello World" 2>actual &&
>  	test_cmp expect actual
>  '
>  
> @@ -77,7 +87,7 @@ asking for a quick stop
>  EOF
>  
>  test_expect_success 'run_command is asked to abort gracefully' '
> -	test-run-command run-command-abort-3 false 2>actual &&
> +	test-run-command run-command-abort 3 false 2>actual &&
>  	test_cmp expect actual
>  '
>  
> diff --git a/test-run-command.c b/test-run-command.c
> index 4b59482..44710c3 100644
> --- a/test-run-command.c
> +++ b/test-run-command.c
> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ static int task_finished(int result,
>  int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  {
>  	struct child_process proc = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
> +	int jobs;
>  
>  	if (argc < 3)
>  		return 1;
> @@ -61,12 +62,15 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  	if (!strcmp(argv[1], "run-command"))
>  		exit(run_command(&proc));
>  
> -	if (!strcmp(argv[1], "run-command-parallel-4"))
> -		exit(run_processes_parallel(4, parallel_next,
> +	jobs = atoi(argv[2]);
> +	proc.argv = (const char **)argv+3;

	proc.argv = (const char **)argv + 3;

or

	proc.argv = (const char **)&argv[3];

Given the line immediately before refers to argv[2], the latter
might be easier on the eyes to follow.

In what way does this "Increase" test coverage?  By allowing the
caller to specify arbitrarily higher parallelism?

> +
> +	if (!strcmp(argv[1], "run-command-parallel"))
> +		exit(run_processes_parallel(jobs, parallel_next,
>  					    NULL, NULL, &proc));
>  
> -	if (!strcmp(argv[1], "run-command-abort-3"))
> -		exit(run_processes_parallel(3, parallel_next,
> +	if (!strcmp(argv[1], "run-command-abort"))
> +		exit(run_processes_parallel(jobs, parallel_next,
>  					    NULL, task_finished, &proc));
>  
>  	fprintf(stderr, "check usage\n");
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]