On 12/05/2016 10:05, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 09:19:08AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:55:14PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>> @@ -115,33 +123,12 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>
>>> report_prefix_push("rtas");
>>>
>>> - if (argc < 2)
>>> - report_abort("no test specified");
>>> -
>>> - report_prefix_push(argv[1]);
>>> -
>>> - if (strcmp(argv[1], "get-time-of-day") == 0) {
>>> -
>>> - len = parse_keyval(argv[2], &val);
>>> - if (len == -1) {
>>> - printf("Missing parameter \"date\"\n");
>>> - abort();
>>> - }
>>> - argv[2][len] = '\0';
>>> -
>>> + if (parse_keyval(argc, argv, "get-time-of-day", &val))
>>> check_get_time_of_day(val);
>>>
>>> - } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "set-time-of-day") == 0) {
>>> -
>>> + if (find_key(argc, argv, "set-time-of-day"))
>>> check_set_time_of_day();
>>>
>>> - } else {
>>> - printf("Unknown subtest\n");
>>> - abort();
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> - report_prefix_pop();
>>> -
>>
>> Also a nice cleanup. We could have kept the missing parameter abort
>> with something like
>>
>> if (find_key(argc, argv, "get-time-of-day")) {
>> if (!parse_keyval(argc, argv, "get-time-of-day", &val)) {
>> printf("Missing parameter \"date\"\n");
>> abort();
>> }
>> check_get_time_of_day(val);
>> }
>
> Hmm, actually the above wouldn't work with the current
> find_key implementation. Maybe we should change it to
> just check for null?
>
> bool find_key(int argc, char **argv, char *key)
> {
> return find_keyval(argc, argv, key) != NULL;
> }
>
> And change the documentation to explain it looks for @key
> by itself, or with a paired =val, but doesn't parse val.
I don't know if it can help, but instead of creating our own API,
perhaps we can implement getopt() and getopt_long() and use them?
Or is it over-engineered?
Laurent
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
