On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:55:48 +0100
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
so, thousands of output lines for the whole test, ok
