Hi Johannes,
I'm William's teammate on this feature.
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> Hi William,
>
> On Mon, 30 May 2016, William Duclot wrote:
>
> > Test the strbuf API. Being used throughout all Git the API could be
> > considered tested, but adding specific tests makes it easier to improve
> > and extend the API.
> > ---
>
> The commit message makes sense. Please add your sign-off.
>
We forgot to add the sign-off, we will fix that in the V2.
> > Makefile | 1 +
> > t/helper/test-strbuf.c | 69
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > t/t0082-strbuf.sh | 19 ++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 89 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 t/helper/test-strbuf.c
> > create mode 100755 t/t0082-strbuf.sh
> >
> > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > index 3f03366..dc84f43 100644
> > --- a/Makefile
> > +++ b/Makefile
> > @@ -613,6 +613,7 @@ TEST_PROGRAMS_NEED_X += test-scrap-cache-tree
> > TEST_PROGRAMS_NEED_X += test-sha1
> > TEST_PROGRAMS_NEED_X += test-sha1-array
> > TEST_PROGRAMS_NEED_X += test-sigchain
> > +TEST_PROGRAMS_NEED_X += test-strbuf
> > TEST_PROGRAMS_NEED_X += test-string-list
> > TEST_PROGRAMS_NEED_X += test-submodule-config
> > TEST_PROGRAMS_NEED_X += test-subprocess
> > diff --git a/t/helper/test-strbuf.c b/t/helper/test-strbuf.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..622f627
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/t/helper/test-strbuf.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
> > +#include "git-compat-util.h"
> > +#include "strbuf.h"
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Check behavior on usual use cases
> > + */
> > +int test_usual(struct strbuf *sb)
>
> I have to admit that I would prefer a more concrete name. And since your
> other tests are more fine-grained, maybe this one could be split into
> multiple separate ones, too?
>
We will rename this function.
We thought that one complete function would be convenient to test
the usual API's behaviour. We are not sure how that change would be useful?
> > +{
> > + size_t size, old_alloc;
> > + char *res, *old_buf, *str_test = malloc(5*sizeof(char));
>
> Our convention is to list the initialized variables first, the
> uninitialized ones after that, and for readability an empty line is
> recommended after the variable declaration block.
OK, seems more readable.
> > + strbuf_grow(sb, 1);
> > + strcpy(str_test, "test");
> > + old_alloc = sb->alloc;
> > + strbuf_grow(sb, 1000);
> > + if (old_alloc == sb->alloc)
> > + die("strbuf_grow does not realloc the buffer as expected");
> > + old_buf = sb->buf;
> > + res = strbuf_detach(sb, &size);
> > + if (res != old_buf)
> > + die("strbuf_detach does not return the expected buffer");
> > + free(res);
> > +
> > + strcpy(str_test, "test");
> > + strbuf_attach(sb, (void *)str_test, strlen(str_test), sizeof(str_test));
> > + res = strbuf_detach(sb, &size);
> > + if (res != str_test)
> > + die("strbuf_detach does not return the expected buffer");
> > + free(res);
> > + strbuf_release(sb);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > +{
> > + size_t size = 1;
> > + struct strbuf sb;
>
> The common theme in our source code seems to initialize using
> STRBUF_INIT... Let's use that paradigm here, too?
We will add a test to check that initializing with srtbuf_init(...) is the
same as initializing with STRBUF_INIT.
>
> > + char str_test[5] = "test";
> > + char str_foo[7] = "foo";
> > +
> > + if (argc != 2)
> > + usage("test-strbuf mode");
>
> A nice and convenient way to do command-line parsing is to use the
> parse-options API, in this case with OPT_CMDMODE. This would also give us
> a chance to document the command modes in a nice and succinct way: as help
> strings.
>
True, we're going to make that change.
> > +
> > + if (!strcmp(argv[1], "basic_grow")) {
> > + /*
> > + * Check if strbuf_grow(0) allocate a new NUL-terminated buffer
>
> s/allocate/&s/
>
> > + */
> > + strbuf_init(&sb, 0);
> > + strbuf_grow(&sb, 0);
> > + if (sb.buf == strbuf_slopbuf)
> > + die("strbuf_grow failed to alloc memory");
> > + strbuf_release(&sb);
> > + if (sb.buf != strbuf_slopbuf)
> > + die("strbuf_release does not reinitialize the strbuf");
> > + } else if (!strcmp(argv[1], "strbuf_check_behavior")) {
> > + strbuf_init(&sb, 0);
> > + return test_usual(&sb);
> > + } else if (!strcmp(argv[1], "grow_overflow")) {
> > + /*
> > + * size_t overflow: should die()
> > + */
> > + strbuf_init(&sb, 1000);
> > + strbuf_grow(&sb, maximum_unsigned_value_of_type((size_t)1));
>
> A comment "If this does not die(), fall through to returning success, to
> indicate an error" might be nice here.
Agreed.
> > + } else {
> > + usage("test-strbuf mode");
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > diff --git a/t/t0082-strbuf.sh b/t/t0082-strbuf.sh
> > new file mode 100755
> > index 0000000..0800d26
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/t/t0082-strbuf.sh
> > @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
> > +#!/bin/sh
> > +
> > +test_description="Test the strbuf API.
> > +"
>
> This description does not need a new-line, and existing one-liner test
> descriptions seem not to be terminated by a period.
OK.
> The rest of this patch looks good.
>
> Ciao,
> Johannes
>
Thanks for the Review,
Simon Rabourg
--
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