Re: [PATCH 10/11] t-reftable-record: add tests for reftable_ref_record_compare_name()

From: Chandra Pratap <chandrapratap3519@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 25, 2024, 13:45 UTC
Message-ID: <CA+J6zkQJk+2WNaK5qP690bqwTPNCiXTBYCbaOgcxgtue3LZ_xQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOLa=ZTnwA0gYeDo3m9ZZD-jJJN=+FdVKTLDKTG4x-vn6wC2jg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 at 14:56, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 41 quoted lines

>
> Chandra Pratap <chandrapratap3519@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > 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 <ps@pks.im>
> > Mentored-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Chandra Pratap <chandrapratap3519@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  t/unit-tests/t-reftable-record.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-record.c b/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-record.c
> > index 99ebfafe0b..b949617c88 100644
> > --- a/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-record.c
> > +++ b/t/unit-tests/t-reftable-record.c
> > @@ -101,6 +101,23 @@ static void test_reftable_ref_record_comparison(void)
> >               reftable_record_release(&in[i]);
> >  }
> >
> > +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);
> > +
> > +     QSORT(recs, N, reftable_ref_record_compare_name);
> > +
> > +     for (i = 1; i < N; i++)
> > +             check(reftable_ref_record_compare_name(&recs[i - 1], &recs[i]) < 0);
> > +
>
> I understand the intention, but using a function to help sort strings
> and then using validating the same function with those strings doesn't
> validate the functionality of the function.

True. I'll modify this to use strcmp() instead.

> I would have preferred to see some hardcoded strings and simply
> comparison between them. Also comparison's where
> `reftable_ref_record_compare_name` returns '0' and '> 0' values.

The only use case for this function is as the comparison function for QSORT(), so I wanted to design a test close to that use case. Nevertheless, I'll add tests for '== 0' and '> 0' cases.

Show 17 quoted lines

> > +     for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
> > +             reftable_ref_record_release(&recs[i]);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void test_reftable_ref_record_roundtrip(void)
> >  {
> >       struct strbuf scratch = STRBUF_INIT;
> > @@ -501,6 +518,7 @@ 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