From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42361) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V1OhL-0006NZ-0k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:35:21 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V1OhG-0006Yi-WF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:35:18 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42341) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V1OhG-0006YU-Nu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:35:14 -0400 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6MMZErE003204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:35:14 -0400 Message-ID: <51EDB434.4030103@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:37:40 +0200 From: Laszlo Ersek MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1374527256-27631-1-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com> <1374527256-27631-9-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com> <51EDAC5F.1070001@redhat.com> <51EDB12A.7020704@redhat.com> <51EDB17A.7020206@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <51EDB17A.7020206@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 8/8] OptsVisitor: introduce unit tests, with test cases for range flattening List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 07/23/13 00:26, Eric Blake wrote: > On 07/22/2013 04:24 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>> Pretty thorough, although I thought of a couple other ideas to test: >>> i64=5z-6 should fail; i64=5-6-7 should fail >> >> I can add them if you insist, but I wrote (and single-stepped all of) >> the test cases so that all branches added by patches 3, 5 and 6 would be >> covered. (Some of the final tests in this function are actually >> redundant, but I liked how they looked :)) >> >> For example, "i64=5z-6" is no different from "i64=5z", in patch 3 both >> the first added (*endptr == '\0') condition and the (*endptr == '-') >> fail the same way for both input strings: we never look past the "z". >> >> Likewise, "i64=5-6-7" is the same case as "i64=5-6z": both characters >> after the "6" (ie. "-" and "z") violate the second added (*endptr == >> '\0') condition in patch 3 the same way. >> >> Do you accept this argument? :) > > Yes, I can agree you have 100% code coverage as currently coded. Adding > what currently forms redundant cases may avoid future patch-writers from > breaking 100% coverage while actually triggering different paths between > the cases; but at the same time, we can assume such a future > patch-writer would be adding some new feature to the parser, and could > expand the testsuite accordingly as part of their efforts. Agreed! > So no, I > won't insist on a respin :) Thank you very much :) /me bows and scrapes Laszlo