Re: [libgpiod][PATCH 0/2] tests: improve wait_multiple coverage

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:39:49AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:37 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 09:50:08AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A couple of patches for the v2 branch that improve the coverage of the
> > > > wait_multiple test case.
> > > >
> > > > The first creates a mismatch between the chip offsets and bulk offsets
> > > > to highlight the problem with my initial implementation of
> > > > gpiod_line_event_wait_bulk() for uAPI v2.
> > > >
> > > > The second adds a check on the event.offset field added for uAPI v2.
> > > >
> > > > Kent Gibson (2):
> > > >   tests: create mismatch between chip and bulk offsets in wait_multiple
> > > >   tests: add check of event offset to wait_multiple
> > > >
> > > >  tests/tests-event.c | 3 ++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.28.0
> > > >
> > >
> > > I suppose that, if we don't want to do the backward compatible port
> > > for now, these can be ignored?
> > >
> >
> > It wouldn't hurt to have them either way - in my book it never hurts
> > to increase test coverage.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kent.
> 
> Ok I thought they only apply to your v2 port but I see they'll work in
> master too.
> 

Yes and No, i.e. the first is general, the second is requires the offset
field in the event, and so only works for a uAPI v2 port.

Kent.