Re: [PATCH v3 10/11] t-reftable-record: add tests for reftable_ref_record_compare_name()
From: Karthik Nayak <hidden>
Date: 2024-06-30 18:59:17
Chandra Pratap [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
reftable_ref_record_compare_name() is a function defined by reftable/record.{c, h} and is used to compare the refname of two ref records when sorting multiple ref records using 'qsort'. In the current testing setup, this function is left unexercised. Add a testing function for the same. Mentored-by: Patrick Steinhardt [off-list ref] Mentored-by: Christian Couder [off-list ref] Signed-off-by: Chandra Pratap <redacted> --- t/unit-tests/t-reftable-record.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)diff --git a/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-record.c b/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-record.c index 55b8d03494..f45f2fdef2 100644 --- a/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-record.c +++ b/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-record.c@@ -95,6 +95,28 @@ static void test_reftable_ref_record_comparison(void) check(!reftable_record_cmp(&in[0], &in[1])); } +static void test_reftable_ref_record_compare_name(void) +{ + struct reftable_ref_record recs[14] = { 0 }; + size_t N = ARRAY_SIZE(recs), i; + + for (i = 0; i < N; i++) + recs[i].refname = xstrfmt("%02"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t)i);
This needs to be free'd too right? So we create an array of 14 records, with refnames "00", "01", "02" ... "13", here.
+ + QSORT(recs, N, reftable_ref_record_compare_name); +
We then use `reftable_ref_record_compare_name` as the comparison function to sort them.
+ for (i = 1; i < N; i++) {
+ check_int(strcmp(recs[i - 1].refname, recs[i].refname), <, 0);
+ check_int(reftable_ref_record_compare_name(&recs[i], &recs[i]), ==, 0);
+ }Here we use `strcmp` to ensure that the ordering done by `reftable_ref_record_compare_name` is correct. This makes sense, although I would have expected this to be done the other way around. i.e. we should use `strcmp` as the function used in `QSORT` and in this loop we validate that `reftable_ref_record_compare_name` also produces the same result when comparing.
+ + for (i = 0; i < N - 1; i++) + check_int(reftable_ref_record_compare_name(&recs[i + 1], &recs[i]), >, 0); +
Also, with the current setup, we use `reftable_ref_record_compare_name` to sort the first array and then use `reftable_ref_record_compare_name` to check if it is correct? This doesn't work, we need to isolate the data creation from the inference, if the same function can influence both, then we are not really testing the function.
+ for (i = 0; i < N; i++) + reftable_ref_record_release(&recs[i]); +} +
Nit: The top three loops could possibly be combined.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
static void test_reftable_ref_record_roundtrip(void) { struct strbuf scratch = STRBUF_INIT;@@ -490,6 +512,7 @@ int cmd_main(int argc, const char *argv[]) TEST(test_reftable_log_record_comparison(), "comparison operations work on log record"); TEST(test_reftable_index_record_comparison(), "comparison operations work on index record"); TEST(test_reftable_obj_record_comparison(), "comparison operations work on obj record"); + TEST(test_reftable_ref_record_compare_name(), "reftable_ref_record_compare_name works"); TEST(test_reftable_log_record_roundtrip(), "record operations work on log record"); TEST(test_reftable_ref_record_roundtrip(), "record operations work on ref record"); TEST(test_varint_roundtrip(), "put_var_int and get_var_int work"); --2.45.2.404.g9eaef5822c
Attachments
- signature.asc [application/pgp-signature] 690 bytes