Re: [PATCH] t-example-decorate: remove test messages

["Ghanshyam Thakkar" <shyamthakkar001@gmail.com>]

Hi René,

René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> wrote:
> The test_msg() calls only repeat information already present in test
> descriptions and check definitions, which are shown automatically if
> the checks fail. Remove the redundant messages to simplify the tests
> and their output. Here it is with all of them failing before:
>
> # check "ret == NULL" failed at t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:18
> # when adding a brand-new object, NULL should be returned
> # check "ret == NULL" failed at t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:21
> # when adding a brand-new object, NULL should be returned
> not ok 1 - Add 2 objects, one with a non-NULL decoration and one with a
> NULL decoration.
> # check "ret == &vars->decoration_a" failed at
> t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:29
> # when readding an already existing object, existing decoration should
> be returned
> # check "ret == NULL" failed at t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:32
> # when readding an already existing object, existing decoration should
> be returned
> not ok 2 - When re-adding an already existing object, the old decoration
> is returned.
> # check "ret == NULL" failed at t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:40
> # lookup should return added declaration
> # check "ret == &vars->decoration_b" failed at
> t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:43
> # lookup should return added declaration
> # check "ret == NULL" failed at t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:46
> # lookup for unknown object should return NULL
> not ok 3 - Lookup returns the added declarations, or NULL if the object
> was never added.
> # check "objects_noticed == 2" failed at
> t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:58
> # left: 1
> # right: 2
> # should have 2 objects
> not ok 4 - The user can also loop through all entries.
> 1..4
>
> ... and here with the patch applied:
>
> # check "ret == NULL" failed at t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:18
> # check "ret == NULL" failed at t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:20
> not ok 1 - Add 2 objects, one with a non-NULL decoration and one with a
> NULL decoration.
> # check "ret == &vars->decoration_a" failed at
> t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:27
> # check "ret == NULL" failed at t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:29
> not ok 2 - When re-adding an already existing object, the old decoration
> is returned.
> # check "ret == NULL" failed at t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:36
> # check "ret == &vars->decoration_b" failed at
> t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:38
> # check "ret == NULL" failed at t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:40
> not ok 3 - Lookup returns the added declarations, or NULL if the object
> was never added.
> # check "objects_noticed == 2" failed at
> t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c:51
> # left: 1
> # right: 2
> not ok 4 - The user can also loop through all entries.
> 1..4
>
> Signed-off-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
> ---
> t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c | 24 ++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c
> b/t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c
> index a4a75db735..8bf0709c41 100644
> --- a/t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c
> +++ b/t/unit-tests/t-example-decorate.c
> @@ -15,36 +15,29 @@ static void t_add(struct test_vars *vars)
> {
> void *ret = add_decoration(&vars->n, vars->one, &vars->decoration_a);
>
> - if (!check(ret == NULL))
> - test_msg("when adding a brand-new object, NULL should be returned");
> + check(ret == NULL);
> ret = add_decoration(&vars->n, vars->two, NULL);
> - if (!check(ret == NULL))
> - test_msg("when adding a brand-new object, NULL should be returned");
> + check(ret == NULL);

If we want to further simplify, I don't see any need for having 'ret'
either and to just call the methods in check():

    check(add_decoration(&vars->n, vars->two, NULL), ==, NULL);

which would also provide more context in the stdout rather than printing
'check(ret == NULL)'. But, I believe you would have already considered
that but kept 'ret' in favor of code readability, so I am also fine with
it. Thanks for patch.