Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] Make unit test compatible with GLIB v2.28

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

 



Hi Brian,

On 25/01/17 16:43, Gix, Brian wrote:
> Hi Felipe,
> 
> On 25/1/17 Felipe Ferreri Tonello wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> On 24/01/17 20:10, Gix, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> H Luiz, Felipe, Szymon,
>>>
>>>> From: Gix, Brian
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>  unit/test-midi.c | 8 ++++++--
>>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/unit/test-midi.c b/unit/test-midi.c index
>>>> d318b07..3995c86 100644
>>>> --- a/unit/test-midi.c
>>>> +++ b/unit/test-midi.c
>>>> @@ -282,8 +282,12 @@ static void compare_events(const
>> snd_seq_event_t
>>>> *ev1,
>>>>  		                ev2->data.control.value);
>>>>  		break;
>>>>  	case SND_SEQ_EVENT_SYSEX:
>>>> -		g_assert_cmpmem(ev1->data.ext.ptr, ev1->data.ext.len,
>>>> -		                ev2->data.ext.ptr, ev2->data.ext.len);
>>>> +		g_assert_cmpint(ev1->data.ext.len,
>>>> +		                ==,
>>>> +		                ev2->data.ext.len);
>>>> +		g_assert(memcmp(ev1->data.ext.ptr,
>>>> +		                ev2->data.ext.ptr,
>>>> +		                ev2->data.ext.len) == 0);
>>>>  		break;
>>>>  	default:
>>>>  		g_assert_not_reached();
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a straightforward rework of the g_assert_cmpmem assert.
>>>
>>> It was used only once, and both replacement asserts existed pre-v2.28
>>>
>>
>> Fine by me, but make sure you add a relevant comment in the git message,
>> please.
>>
>> Just the title is not enough. You could write something like:
>>
>> g_assert_cmpmem was added in version X of glib and since we don't want to
>> bump the required version of glib for BlueZ because of a unit-test, we use
>> g_assert_cmpint and g_assert to replace previous code.
> 
> 
> I can put this in the comment if people like, but it is a very straightforward change. 
> 
> You don't think the existing comment makes it clear that the change is being done to avoid up-reving GLIB?  

IMO, no.

It doesn't make clear why you decided to change the code instead of
change the glib requirement.

> 
> It is a *very* isolated change that affects only asserts, for the reason given in the headline. I think more verbiage would be excessive.

Well, I have given my opinion, but this is too small for me to push it.
It is up to Luiz to decide if he is ok with it.

-- 
Felipe

Attachment: 0x92698E6A.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


[Index of Archives]     [Bluez Devel]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Networking]     [Linux ATH6KL]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media Drivers]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Big List of Linux Books]

  Powered by Linux