Re: [PATCH v2] t-strvec: use test_msg()

["René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>]

Am 09.07.24 um 13:32 schrieb Jeff King:
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 07:03:36PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/t/unit-tests/t-strvec.c b/t/unit-tests/t-strvec.c
>> index d4615ab06d..236203af61 100644
>> --- a/t/unit-tests/t-strvec.c
>> +++ b/t/unit-tests/t-strvec.c
>> @@ -17,12 +17,12 @@ static void check_strvec_loc(const char *loc, struct strvec *vec, ...)
>>  			break;
>>
>>  		if (!check_uint(vec->nr, >, nr) ||
>> -		    !check_uint(vec->alloc, >, nr) ||
>> -		    !check_str(vec->v[nr], str)) {
>> -			struct strbuf msg = STRBUF_INIT;
>> -			strbuf_addf(&msg, "strvec index %"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t) nr);
>> -			test_assert(loc, msg.buf, 0);
>> -			strbuf_release(&msg);
>> +		    !check_uint(vec->alloc, >, nr)) {
>> +			va_end(ap);
>> +			return;
>> +		}
>> +		if (!check_str(vec->v[nr], str)) {
>> +			test_msg("     nr: %"PRIuMAX, (uintmax_t)nr);
>>  			va_end(ap);
>>  			return;
>>  		}
>
> The "loc" parameter to the function is now unused. Should it be removed,
> or is it a bug that we are no longer reporting the caller's location?

It's a bug.  If only there was a way to detect such an unused parameter
automatically.. ;->

> Should we be using check_str_loc() in the post-image?

Yes, and check_uint_loc() and check_pointer_eq_loc() as well.  Which
would be a pain.  Or we drag everything into the macro check_strvec and
get the caller's line number for free.

René