On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The fact that the 32 new tests are nearly identical suggests strongly > that the testing should instead either be table-driven or be done via > for-loops to systematically cover all cases. Not only would either of > these approaches be easier to digest, but they would make it easy to > tell at a glance if any cases were missing. See [2] for an example of > how the tests can be table-driven, and see the bottom of [3] for an > example of using for-loops to test systematically (though you'd need > to use nested for-loops rather than just the one in the example). > > I'm leaning toward systematic testing via nested for-loops as the more > suitable of the two approach for this particular application. By the way, while this would be a nice change, it doesn't necessarily have to be part of this series, and could be done as a follow-up by you or someone else. (The other changes suggested in the same review, however, ought to be fixed in this series; in particular, simplifying the "setup" test and making the first test after "setup" consistent with the remaining tests.) -- 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