On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 2:23 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
> > Note: given x is supposed to point to a or b, I don't know if checking
> > against a.data does us much good.
> > If we're trying to check that hash_add() doesn't mutate the keys and
> > data, this code won't catch it.
> > We'd have to instead do something like
> > if(x->key != 1 && x->key != 2) KUNIT_FAIL(test, ...);
> >
>
> This seems like a good change to me in combination with changing it to
> x->visited++;.
> Although David's suggestion might be slightly more exhaustive.
> Why wouldn't it be important to check that the key matches the data?
Checks like
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, x->data, a.data);
won't do anything, given that x == &a.
We're just comparing x->data to itself.
So we would have to write something instead like
hash_for_each(hash, bkt, x, node) {
x->visited++;
if (x->key == a.key) {
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, x->data, 13);
} else if (x->key == b.key) {
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, x->data, 10);
} else { /* some call to KUNIT_FAIL about a bad key */ }
}
Maybe that's worth it in one of the test cases, but I don't know if
it's necessary to replicate this in the other places where we're
incrementing `visited` by checking keys.
Daniel
