On 04.11.19 12:49, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:31:32 +0100
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 04.11.19 12:29, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 11:58:20 +0100
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
Can we just please rename all "cx" into something like "len"? Or is
there a real need to have "cx" in there?
if cx is such a nuisance to you, sure, I can rename it to i
better than random characters :)
will be in v3
Also, I still dislike "test_one_sccb". Can't we just just do
something like
expect_pgm_int();
rc = test_one_sccb(...)
report("whatever pgm", rc == WHATEVER);
report("whatever rc", lc->pgm_int_code == WHATEVER);
In the callers to make these tests readable and cleanup
test_one_sccb(). I don't care if that produces more LOC as long as
I can actually read and understand the test cases.
if you think that makes it more readable, ok I guess...
consider that the output will be unreadable, though
I think his will turn out more readable.
two output lines per SCLP call? I don't think so
To clarify, we don't always need two checks. E.g., I would like to see
instead of
+static void test_sccb_too_short(void)
+{
+ int cx;
+
+ for (cx = 0; cx < 8; cx++)
+ if (!test_one_run(valid_code, pagebuf, cx, 8, PGM_BIT_SPEC, 0))
+ break;
+
+ report("SCCB too short", cx == 8);
+}
Something like
static void test_sccb_too_short(void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
expect_pgm_int();
test_one_sccb(...); // or however that will be called
check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION);
}
}
If possible.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
