From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34069) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZcxJP-0004Be-2b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:10:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZcxJL-0001i0-OZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:10:54 -0400 Received: from mx6-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.39]:33436) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZcxJL-0001hd-IS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:10:51 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:10:49 -0400 (EDT) From: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau Message-ID: <292263729.13770446.1442589049347.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <55FC282B.2080304@redhat.com> References: <1442573994-14632-1-git-send-email-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <1442573994-14632-2-git-send-email-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <55FC282B.2080304@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/4] tests: add some qemu_strtosz() tests List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: marcandre lureau , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com Hi ----- Original Message ----- > On 09/18/2015 04:59 AM, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: > > From: Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau > >=20 > > While reading the function I decided to write some tests. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake > > --- > > tests/test-cutils.c | 91 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 91 insertions(+) >=20 > I accepted v1 because it was better than no tests at all, but did make > some suggestions for additional tests to perform. I'm surprised you > didn't include any of those suggestions in v2. For example, it would be > nice if the testsuite documents a contract on what happens with a bogus > suffix: is "1234x" outright rejected, or does it parse as "1234" leaving > the pointer at 'x'? I thought you were ok with this patch as is. But I can add some failing tes= ts if you want (although it feels like testing strtod() at this point.