Thread (16 messages) 16 messages, 4 authors, 2021-01-22

Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] lib/cmdline_kunit: add a new test case for get_options()

From: Bartosz Golaszewski <hidden>
Date: 2021-01-22 11:52:54

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:45 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Add a test case for get_options() which is provided by cmdline.c.

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 lib/cmdline_kunit.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/cmdline_kunit.c b/lib/cmdline_kunit.c
index 550e7a47fd24..74da9ed61779 100644
--- a/lib/cmdline_kunit.c
+++ b/lib/cmdline_kunit.c
@@ -18,6 +18,26 @@ static const int cmdline_test_values[] = {
        1, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1,
 };

+static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(cmdline_test_strings) == ARRAY_SIZE(cmdline_test_values));
+
+static const char *cmdline_test_range_strings[] = {
+       "-7" , "--7"  , "-1-2"    , "7--9",
+       "7-" , "-7--9", "7-9,"    , "9-7" ,
+       "5-a", "a-5"  , "5-8"     , ",8-5",
+       "+,1", "-,4"  , "-3,0-1,6", "4,-" ,
+       " +2", " -9"  , "0-1,-3,6", "- 9" ,
+};
+
+static const int cmdline_test_range_values[][16] = {
+       { 1, -7, }, { 0, -0, }, { 4, -1, 0, +1, 2, }, { 0, 7, },
+       { 0, +7, }, { 0, -7, }, { 3, +7, 8, +9, 0, }, { 0, 9, },
+       { 0, +5, }, { 0, -0, }, { 4, +5, 6, +7, 8, }, { 0, 0, },
+       { 0, +0, }, { 0, -0, }, { 4, -3, 0, +1, 6, }, { 1, 4, },
+       { 0, +0, }, { 0, -0, }, { 4, +0, 1, -3, 6, }, { 0, 0, },
+};
+
+static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(cmdline_test_range_strings) == ARRAY_SIZE(cmdline_test_range_values));
+
 static void cmdline_do_one_test(struct kunit *test, const char *in, int rc, int offset)
 {
        const char *fmt = "Pattern: %s";
@@ -84,10 +104,42 @@ static void cmdline_test_tail_int(struct kunit *test)
        } while (++i < ARRAY_SIZE(cmdline_test_strings));
 }

+static void cmdline_do_one_range_test(struct kunit *test, const char *in,
+                                     unsigned int n, const int *e)
+{
+       unsigned int i;
+       int r[16];
+
+#define FMT    "in test %u"
+#define FMT2   "expected %d numbers, got %d"
+#define FMT3   "at %d"
+       memset(r, 0, sizeof(r));
+       get_options(in, ARRAY_SIZE(r), r);
+       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, r[0], e[0], FMT " " FMT2, n, e[0], r[0]);
+       for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_SIZE(r); i++)
+               KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, r[i], e[i], FMT " " FMT3, n, i);
+#undef FMT3
+#undef FMT2
+#undef FMT
IMO these FMT macros are super confusing, please just use hardcoded
strings because you're not saving any code anyway.

Bart
+}
+
+static void cmdline_test_range(struct kunit *test)
+{
+       unsigned int i = 0;
+
+       do {
+               const char *str = cmdline_test_range_strings[i];
+               const int *e = cmdline_test_range_values[i];
+
+               cmdline_do_one_range_test(test, str, i, e);
+       } while (++i < ARRAY_SIZE(cmdline_test_range_strings));
+}
+
 static struct kunit_case cmdline_test_cases[] = {
        KUNIT_CASE(cmdline_test_noint),
        KUNIT_CASE(cmdline_test_lead_int),
        KUNIT_CASE(cmdline_test_tail_int),
+       KUNIT_CASE(cmdline_test_range),
        {}
 };

--
2.29.2
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help