Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 18/26] tests-qobject-input-strict: Merge into test-qobject-input-visitor

[Markus Armbruster]

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> On 02/26/2017 03:43 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Much test-qobject-input-strict.c duplicates
>
> s/Much/Much of/
>
>> test-qobject-input-strict.c less assertions on expected output:
>
> s/less/, but with less/

Will fix.

>
> ...
>> 
>> Merge the remaining test cases into test-qobject-input-visitor.c, and
>> drop the now redundant test-qobject-input-strict.c.
>> 
>> Test case "/visitor/input-strict/fail/list" isn't really about lists,
>> it's about a bad struct nested in a list.  Rename accordingly.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
>> ---
>
>
>> -static void test_validate_struct_nested(TestInputVisitorData *data,
>> -                                         const void *unused)
>> -{
>> -    UserDefTwo *udp = NULL;
>> -    Visitor *v;
>> -
>> -    v = validate_test_init(data, "{ 'string0': 'string0', "
>> -                           "'dict1': { 'string1': 'string1', "
>> -                           "'dict2': { 'userdef': { 'integer': 42, "
>> -                           "'string': 'string' }, 'string': 'string2'}}}");
>> -
>
> Old code had semi-sane line wrapping...
>
>
>> +++ b/tests/test-qobject-input-visitor.c
>> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
>>   *
>
>> +static void test_visitor_in_fail_struct_nested(TestInputVisitorData *data,
>> +                                               const void *unused)
>> +{
>> +    UserDefTwo *udp = NULL;
>> +    Error *err = NULL;
>> +    Visitor *v;
>> +
>> +    v = visitor_input_test_init(data, "{ 'string0': 'string0', 'dict1': { 
>> 'string1': 'string1', 'dict2': { 'userdef1': { 'integer': 42, 'string': 
>> 'string', 'extra': [42, 23, {'foo':'bar'}] }, 'string2': 'string2'}}}");
>
>
> ...new code has insanely long lines.  Not a show-stopper, but I wouldn't
> mind if you added line breaks.

Editing accident.  I'll restore the line breaks.

> It's a little bit hard to follow the patch alone, but I didn't spot any
> obvious loss of coverage and the commit message definitely helps.
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>

Thanks!