Re: [PATCH 1/4] t/unit-tests: convert hashmap test to clar framework

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

 



On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:13:31AM +0100, Seyi Kuforiji wrote:
> Adapts hashmap test script to clar framework by using clar assertions

s/Adapts/Adapt as we generally want to use imperative wording in commit
messages, as if we're instructing the code to change.

Also, please note that the code is not a script. Scripts get executed by
an interpreter, but C files are compiled by a compiler before they can
get executed. So you should be talking about "code", not "scripts".

> where necessary. Test functions are created as both standalone and
> inline to test different test cases.

I honestly don't quite know what this second sentence is supposed to say
:)

> diff --git a/t/unit-tests/t-hashmap.c b/t/unit-tests/u-hashmap.c
> similarity index 60%
> rename from t/unit-tests/t-hashmap.c
> rename to t/unit-tests/u-hashmap.c
> index 83b79dff39..6b6d22005a 100644
> --- a/t/unit-tests/t-hashmap.c
> +++ b/t/unit-tests/u-hashmap.c
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -#include "test-lib.h"
> +#include "unit-test.h"
>  #include "hashmap.h"
>  #include "strbuf.h"
>  
> @@ -83,23 +83,23 @@ static void t_replace(struct hashmap *map, unsigned int ignore_case)
>  	struct test_entry *entry;
>  
>  	entry = alloc_test_entry("key1", "value1", ignore_case);
> -	check_pointer_eq(hashmap_put_entry(map, entry, ent), NULL);
> +	cl_assert_equal_p(hashmap_put_entry(map, entry, ent), NULL);
>  
>  	entry = alloc_test_entry(ignore_case ? "Key1" : "key1", "value2",
>  				 ignore_case);
>  	entry = hashmap_put_entry(map, entry, ent);
> -	if (check(entry != NULL))
> -		check_str(get_value(entry), "value1");
> +	cl_assert(entry != NULL);

We usually avoid explicit `!= NULL`, but I guess in this case it's fine
to keep this as-is as you simply keep the preexisting style.

> @@ -165,39 +163,19 @@ static void t_add(struct hashmap *map, unsigned int ignore_case)
>  
>  		hashmap_for_each_entry_from(map, entry, ent)
>  		{
> -			int ret;
> -			if (!check_int((ret = key_val_contains(
> -						key_val, seen,
> -						ARRAY_SIZE(key_val), entry)),
> -				       ==, 0)) {
> -				switch (ret) {
> -				case 1:
> -					test_msg("found entry was not given in the input\n"
> -						 "    key: %s\n  value: %s",
> -						 entry->key, get_value(entry));
> -					break;
> -				case 2:
> -					test_msg("duplicate entry detected\n"
> -						 "    key: %s\n  value: %s",
> -						 entry->key, get_value(entry));
> -					break;
> -				}
> -			} else {
> -				count++;
> -			}
> +			int ret = key_val_contains(key_val, seen,
> +						   ARRAY_SIZE(key_val), entry);
> +			cl_assert(ret == 0);

This could instead use `cl_assert_equal_i(ret, 0)` so that the error
message mentions what the observed error code is.

> @@ -242,38 +221,21 @@ static void t_iterate(struct hashmap *map, unsigned int ignore_case)
>  
>  	for (size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(key_val); i++) {
>  		entry = alloc_test_entry(key_val[i][0], key_val[i][1], ignore_case);
> -		check_pointer_eq(hashmap_put_entry(map, entry, ent), NULL);
> +		cl_assert_equal_p(hashmap_put_entry(map, entry, ent), NULL);
>  	}
>  
>  	hashmap_for_each_entry(map, &iter, entry, ent /* member name */)
>  	{
> -		int ret;
> -		if (!check_int((ret = key_val_contains(key_val, seen,
> -						       ARRAY_SIZE(key_val),
> -						       entry)), ==, 0)) {
> -			switch (ret) {
> -			case 1:
> -				test_msg("found entry was not given in the input\n"
> -					 "    key: %s\n  value: %s",
> -					 entry->key, get_value(entry));
> -				break;
> -			case 2:
> -				test_msg("duplicate entry detected\n"
> -					 "    key: %s\n  value: %s",
> -					 entry->key, get_value(entry));
> -				break;
> -			}
> -		}
> +		int ret = key_val_contains(key_val, seen,
> +						ARRAY_SIZE(key_val),
> +						entry);

Indentation is off here.

> @@ -330,32 +292,68 @@ static void t_intern(void)
> -int cmd_main(int argc UNUSED, const char **argv UNUSED)
> +void test_hashmap__replace_case_sensitive(void)
> +{
> +	setup(t_replace, 0);
> +}

I was briefly wondering whether we should use `__initialize()` and
`__teardown()` functions instead of this setup function so that we can
then get rid of `t_replace()` and other test functions. But then I
realized that we want ot have these separate functions anyway so that we
can easily test with case-sensitivity enabled and disabled, so this is
probably okay.

Patrick




[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]

  Powered by Linux