On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 05:52:18PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 05:48:42PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 05:37:29PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 05:14:07PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > Both functions were very similar already. Under the assumption that they > > > > will always either see a range (or start of) that matches exactly or not > > > > at all, reduce complexity and make get_set_interval_find() accept NULL > > > > (left or) right values. This way it becomes a full replacement for > > > > get_set_interval_end(). > > > > > > I have to go back to the commit log of this patch, IIRC my intention > > > here was to allow users to ask for a single element, then return the > > > range that contains it. > > > > That was my suspicion as well, but while testing I found out that no > > matter what I passed to 'get element', I couldn't provoke a situation in > > which get_set_interval_find() would have left and right elements which > > didn't match exactly (or not at all). > > > > There must be some preparation happening before the call to > > get_set_decompose() which normalizes things. And still, If I disable the > > call to get_set_decompose() entirely, tests start failing. > > Hm, so the approximate or exact matching is broken? Or you mean they > fail because you didn't expect the approximate matching? It's the opposite: Things are working fine even after my simplifications. get_set_interval_find() expected left/right values which sit within a range, e.g. left/right of 22/23 and a set with element 20-30. But to my surprise, this doesn't happen. With these example values, left/right are 20/30, i.e. match the range in the set. That's why I extended tests/shell/testcases/sets/0034get_element_0. Please have a look if there's a use-case I missed. Cheers, Phil
