Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Ghanshyam,
>
> Not sure why the "From:" header of this email says:
>
> "From: A U Thor <shyamthakkar001@xxxxxxxxx>"
>
> Did you make changes to your config or something?
I think I must have changed the user to "A U Thor <author@xxxxxxxxxxx>"
in the repo config while testing something, but don't consciously remember
doing so.
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 1:52 PM A U Thor <shyamthakkar001@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ghanshyam Thakkar <shyamthakkar001@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> > Changes in v4:
> > - update commit message to add a reference and fix typo
> > - change 'int ignore_case' to 'unsigned int ignore_case'
> > - make 'ignore_case' the last parameter in all the functions
> > - update t_get() to add a testcase query for better ignore-case
> > checking
> >
> > Range-diff against v3:
>
>
> > -+static void t_get(struct hashmap *map, int ignore_case)
> > ++static void t_get(struct hashmap *map, unsigned int ignore_case)
> > +{
> > + struct test_entry *entry;
> > + const char *key_val[][2] = { { "key1", "value1" },
> > + { "key2", "value2" },
> > + { "fooBarFrotz", "value3" },
> > -+ { ignore_case ? "key4" : "foobarfrotz", "value4" } };
> > ++ { ignore_case ? "TeNor" : "tenor",
> > ++ ignore_case ? "value4" : "value5" } };
> > + const char *query[][2] = {
> > + { ignore_case ? "Key1" : "key1", "value1" },
> > + { ignore_case ? "keY2" : "key2", "value2" },
> > -+ { ignore_case ? "foobarfrotz" : "fooBarFrotz", "value3" }
> > ++ { ignore_case ? "FOObarFrotz" : "fooBarFrotz", "value3" },
> > ++ { ignore_case ? "TENOR" : "tenor",
> > ++ ignore_case ? "value4" : "value5" }
> > + };
>
> I suggested adding the following test case:
>
> { ignore_case ? "FOOBarFrotZ" : "foobarfrotz",
> ignore_case ? : "value3" : "value4" }
>
> to better check that things work well especially when not ignoring the
> case.
>
> This is because, when not ignoring the case, there used to be a choice
> between { "fooBarFrotz", "value3" } and { "foobarfrotz", "value4" }
> that can be decided only by the case of the key in 'query'. But
> instead you removed that choice from 'key_val'.
Yeah, you're correct about the choice thing. I think I misunderstood
your comments from the previous version. Will update.
Thanks.
