[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/13] tests: Add qdict_stringify_for_keyval() t
From: |
Max Reitz |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/13] tests: Add qdict_stringify_for_keyval() test |
Date: |
Fri, 11 May 2018 20:13:35 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 |
On 2018-05-10 18:02, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/09/2018 11:55 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> tests/check-qdict.c | 54
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+)
>>
>
>> +static void qdict_stringify_for_keyval_test(void)
>> +{
>> + QDict *dict = qdict_new();
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Test stringification of:
>> + *
>> + * {
>> + * "a": "null",
>> + * "b": 42,
>> + * "c": -23,
>> + * "d": false,
>> + * "e": null,
>> + * "f": "",
>> + * "g": 0.5,
>> + * "h": 0xffffffffffffffff,
>> + * "i": true,
>> + * "j": 0
>
> Is it worth testing fun things like '-0.0'?
Sure, why not. Maybe even infinity, although I'm not quite sure the
input visitor can handle it...
>> + g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(dict, "a"), "null"));
>> + g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(dict, "b"), "42"));
>> + g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(dict, "c"), "-23"));
>> + g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(dict, "d"), "off"));
>> + g_assert(qobject_type(qdict_get(dict, "e")) == QTYPE_QNULL);
>
> Is it worth shortening this line to:
> g_assert(qobject_to(QNull, qdict_get(dict, "e")));
I think explicitly checking the type is a bit more expressive.
Max
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature