On 24/03/22 01:22PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> The `binsearch()` test is somewhat weird in that it doesn't explicitly
> spell out its expectations. Instead it does so in a rather ad-hoc way
> with some hard-to-understand computations.
>
> Refactor the test to spell out the needle as well as expected index for
> all testcases. This refactoring highlights that the `binsearch_func()`
> is written somewhat weirdly to find the first integer smaller than the
> needle, not smaller or equal to it. Adjust the function accordingly.
>
> While at it, rename the callback function to better convey its meaning.
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx>
> ---
> reftable/basics_test.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/reftable/basics_test.c b/reftable/basics_test.c
> index dc1c87c5df..85c4d1621c 100644
> --- a/reftable/basics_test.c
> +++ b/reftable/basics_test.c
> @@ -12,40 +12,47 @@ license that can be found in the LICENSE file or at
> #include "test_framework.h"
> #include "reftable-tests.h"
>
> -struct binsearch_args {
> - int key;
> - int *arr;
> +struct integer_needle_lesseq {
> + int needle;
> + int *haystack;
> };
This is probably just personal preference, but I think `key` and `arr`
in this case are a bit more straightforward. I do like that we rename
the args to be more specific. Do we want to also append `_args` to
denote that it is an argument set? Maybe `integer_lesseq_args`?
>
> -static int binsearch_func(size_t i, void *void_args)
> +static int integer_needle_lesseq(size_t i, void *_args)
> {
> - struct binsearch_args *args = void_args;
> -
> - return args->key < args->arr[i];
> + struct integer_needle_lesseq *args = _args;
> + return args->needle <= args->haystack[i];
> }
-Justin
