Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/56] check-qjson: Cover blank and lexically erroneous input

[Markus Armbruster]

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> On 08/08/2018 07:02 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> qobject_from_json() can return null without setting an error on
>> lexical errors.  I call that a bug.  Add test coverage to demonstrate
>> it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>   tests/check-qjson.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>
>> +static void junk_input(void)
>> +{
>> +    /* Note: junk within strings is covered elsewhere */
>> +    Error *err = NULL;
>> +    QObject *obj;
>> +
>> +    obj = qobject_from_json("@", &err);
>
> Invalid token
>
>> +    g_assert(!err);             /* BUG */
>> +    g_assert(obj == NULL);
>> +
>> +    obj = qobject_from_json("[0\xFF]", &err);
>
> \xff stream reset, followed by unbalanced ]



>> +    error_free_or_abort(&err);
>> +    g_assert(obj == NULL);
>> +
>> +    obj = qobject_from_json("00", &err);
>
> Invalid as a JSON number
>
>> +    g_assert(!err);             /* BUG */
>> +    g_assert(obj == NULL);
>> +
>> +    obj = qobject_from_json("[1e", &err);
>
> Incomplete as a JSON number
>
>> +    g_assert(!err);             /* BUG */
>>       g_assert(obj == NULL);
>>   }
>
> Is it also worth testing:
>
> "t" (incomplete as a JSON literal)
> "a" (not a valid JSON literal, but alphabetic and thus different from
> the "@" test above)

Yes, an invalid keyword is worth testing.  The way the code works,
testing one should suffice.

> At any rate, with or without further tests this is good improved
> coverage dealt with in the rest of the series.
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>

Thanks!