| Message ID | pull.1677.v2.git.git.1716710073910.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] apply: add unit tests for parse_range | expand |
"Philip Peterson via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > From: Philip Peterson <philip.c.peterson@gmail.com> > > Also rename parse_range to parse_fragment_range for external linkage. > > Signed-off-by: Philip Peterson <philip.c.peterson@gmail.com> > --- This version saw no reviews (unfortunately). I just gave another quick glance, did not spot anything glaringly wrong, and the way the tests are organized as a series of ... > + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { > + .line = "@@ -4,4", > + .offset = -1, > + .expect_suffix = " +", > + .expect_result = FAILURE, > + .expect_p1 = 9999, > + .expect_p2 = 9999 > + }), "negative offset"); ... rather pleasant to read. I'd admit that it does not count as a proper review, though. Thanks.
Hi Philip Thanks for re-rolling, I've left a few comments below On 26/05/2024 08:54, Philip Peterson via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Philip Peterson <philip.c.peterson@gmail.com> > > Also rename parse_range to parse_fragment_range for external linkage. > > Signed-off-by: Philip Peterson <philip.c.peterson@gmail.com> > --- > apply: add unit tests for parse_range > > Add unit tests for apply's parse_range function. Also rename parse_range > to parse_fragment_range and expose it externally for use by the unit > tests. Internal callers may continue to refer to it by the name > parse_range. > > It is necessary to make the function be non-internal linkage in order to > expose it to the unit testing framework. Because there is another > function in the codebase also called parse_range, change this one to a > more specific name as well: parse_fragment_range. Also add several test > cases (both positive and negative) for the function. This description is useful and should be part of the commit message above the "---" line > +/* > + * exposed only for tests; do not call this as it not > + * a part of the API > + */ > +extern int apply_parse_fragment_range(const char *line, int len, int offset, > + const char *expect, unsigned long *p1, > + unsigned long *p2); We don't bother with extern on function declarations as can be seen from all the other declarations in this header file. > + > #endif > diff --git a/t/unit-tests/t-apply.c b/t/unit-tests/t-apply.c > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000000..0eb0c22fc0d > --- /dev/null > +++ b/t/unit-tests/t-apply.c > @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ > +#include "test-lib.h" > +#include "apply.h" > + > +#define FAILURE -1 > + > +typedef struct test_case { > + const char *line; > + const char *expect_suffix; > + int offset; > + unsigned long expect_p1; > + unsigned long expect_p2; > + int expect_result; > +} test_case; We don't use typedef's in this code base > +static void setup_static(struct test_case t) > +{ > + unsigned long p1 = 9999; > + unsigned long p2 = 9999; > + int result = apply_parse_fragment_range(t.line, strlen(t.line), t.offset, > + t.expect_suffix, &p1, &p2); > + check_int(result, ==, t.expect_result); If we expect apply_parse_fragment_range() to return an error then I'm not sure we want to bother checking p1 and p2 as I don't think we make any guarantees about their values in that case. If we promised not to touch them unless the fragment was successfully parsed we would want to check that but we don't make that promise. > + check_int(p1, ==, t.expect_p1); > + check_int(p2, ==, t.expect_p2); > +} > + > +int cmd_main(int argc, const char **argv) > +{ > + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { > + .line = "@@ -4,4 +", > + .offset = 4, > + .expect_suffix = " +", > + .expect_result = 9, > + .expect_p1 = 4, > + .expect_p2 = 4 > + }), "well-formed range"); This is a nice use of compound literals. It would be good to have a test that checks .expect_result for a longer input string to ensure we're not just stopping at the end of the string. > + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { > + .line = "@@ -4 +8 @@", I would be nice to vary "-4" a bit, all the tests where the parse is successful expect p1 == 4 > + .offset = 4, > + .expect_suffix = " +", > + .expect_result = 7, > + .expect_p1 = 4, > + .expect_p2 = 1 > + }), "non-comma range"); > + > + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { > + .line = "@@ -X,4 +", > + .offset = 4, > + .expect_suffix = " +", > + .expect_result = FAILURE, > + .expect_p1 = 9999, > + .expect_p2 = 9999 > + }), "non-digit range (first coordinate)"); > + > + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { > + .line = "@@ -4,X +", > + .offset = 4, > + .expect_suffix = " +", > + .expect_result = FAILURE, > + .expect_p1 = 4, > + .expect_p2 = 1 // A little strange this is 1, but not end of the world This is an example of why I don't think we should check p1 and p2 when we're expecting the parse to fail. Also please note we don't use "//" comments in the code base. There is a good range of failing non-digit inputs. It would be nice to see a test for a hunk header where the number is too large to parse. Ideally we'd also change the parsing code to return an error in that case rather than waiting to error out later on as the apply code does currently. To do that You'd need to explicitly set errno to zero before calling strtoul() and check it afterwards. Overall this is looking pretty good, thanks for working on it Best Wishes Phillip > + }), "non-digit range (second coordinate)"); > + > + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { > + .line = "@@ -4,4 -", > + .offset = 4, > + .expect_suffix = " +", > + .expect_result = FAILURE, > + .expect_p1 = 4, > + .expect_p2 = 4 > + }), "non-expected trailing text"); > + > + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { > + .line = "@@ -4,4", > + .offset = 4, > + .expect_suffix = " +", > + .expect_result = FAILURE, > + .expect_p1 = 4, > + .expect_p2 = 4 > + }), "not long enough for expected trailing text"); > + > + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { > + .line = "@@ -4,4", > + .offset = 7, > + .expect_suffix = " +", > + .expect_result = FAILURE, > + .expect_p1 = 9999, > + .expect_p2 = 9999 > + }), "not long enough for offset"); > + > + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { > + .line = "@@ -4,4", > + .offset = -1, > + .expect_suffix = " +", > + .expect_result = FAILURE, > + .expect_p1 = 9999, > + .expect_p2 = 9999 > + }), "negative offset"); > + > + return test_done(); > +} > > base-commit: b9cfe4845cb2562584837bc0101c0ab76490a239
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes: > Thanks for re-rolling, I've left a few comments below > ... > This is an example of why I don't think we should check p1 and p2 when > we're expecting the parse to fail. Also please note we don't use "//" > comments in the code base. > > There is a good range of failing non-digit inputs. It would be nice to > see a test for a hunk header where the number is too large to > parse. Ideally we'd also change the parsing code to return an error in > that case rather than waiting to error out later on as the apply code > does currently. To do that You'd need to explicitly set errno to zero > before calling strtoul() and check it afterwards. Thanks. All points you raised make quite a lot of sense to me.
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 8f4432ae57c..1615de69e6c 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -1334,6 +1334,7 @@ THIRD_PARTY_SOURCES += compat/regex/% THIRD_PARTY_SOURCES += sha1collisiondetection/% THIRD_PARTY_SOURCES += sha1dc/% +UNIT_TEST_PROGRAMS += t-apply UNIT_TEST_PROGRAMS += t-ctype UNIT_TEST_PROGRAMS += t-mem-pool UNIT_TEST_PROGRAMS += t-prio-queue diff --git a/apply.c b/apply.c index 901b67e6255..8cdf7e7d77f 100644 --- a/apply.c +++ b/apply.c @@ -36,6 +36,8 @@ #include "wildmatch.h" #include "ws.h" +#define parse_range apply_parse_fragment_range + struct gitdiff_data { struct strbuf *root; int linenr; @@ -1438,8 +1440,8 @@ static int parse_num(const char *line, unsigned long *p) return ptr - line; } -static int parse_range(const char *line, int len, int offset, const char *expect, - unsigned long *p1, unsigned long *p2) +int apply_parse_fragment_range(const char *line, int len, int offset, const char *expect, + unsigned long *p1, unsigned long *p2) { int digits, ex; diff --git a/apply.h b/apply.h index 7cd38b1443c..283aba77495 100644 --- a/apply.h +++ b/apply.h @@ -186,4 +186,12 @@ int apply_all_patches(struct apply_state *state, int argc, const char **argv, int options); +/* + * exposed only for tests; do not call this as it not + * a part of the API + */ +extern int apply_parse_fragment_range(const char *line, int len, int offset, + const char *expect, unsigned long *p1, + unsigned long *p2); + #endif diff --git a/t/unit-tests/t-apply.c b/t/unit-tests/t-apply.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..0eb0c22fc0d --- /dev/null +++ b/t/unit-tests/t-apply.c @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ +#include "test-lib.h" +#include "apply.h" + +#define FAILURE -1 + +typedef struct test_case { + const char *line; + const char *expect_suffix; + int offset; + unsigned long expect_p1; + unsigned long expect_p2; + int expect_result; +} test_case; + +static void setup_static(struct test_case t) +{ + unsigned long p1 = 9999; + unsigned long p2 = 9999; + int result = apply_parse_fragment_range(t.line, strlen(t.line), t.offset, + t.expect_suffix, &p1, &p2); + check_int(result, ==, t.expect_result); + check_int(p1, ==, t.expect_p1); + check_int(p2, ==, t.expect_p2); +} + +int cmd_main(int argc, const char **argv) +{ + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { + .line = "@@ -4,4 +", + .offset = 4, + .expect_suffix = " +", + .expect_result = 9, + .expect_p1 = 4, + .expect_p2 = 4 + }), "well-formed range"); + + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { + .line = "@@ -4 +8 @@", + .offset = 4, + .expect_suffix = " +", + .expect_result = 7, + .expect_p1 = 4, + .expect_p2 = 1 + }), "non-comma range"); + + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { + .line = "@@ -X,4 +", + .offset = 4, + .expect_suffix = " +", + .expect_result = FAILURE, + .expect_p1 = 9999, + .expect_p2 = 9999 + }), "non-digit range (first coordinate)"); + + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { + .line = "@@ -4,X +", + .offset = 4, + .expect_suffix = " +", + .expect_result = FAILURE, + .expect_p1 = 4, + .expect_p2 = 1 // A little strange this is 1, but not end of the world + }), "non-digit range (second coordinate)"); + + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { + .line = "@@ -4,4 -", + .offset = 4, + .expect_suffix = " +", + .expect_result = FAILURE, + .expect_p1 = 4, + .expect_p2 = 4 + }), "non-expected trailing text"); + + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { + .line = "@@ -4,4", + .offset = 4, + .expect_suffix = " +", + .expect_result = FAILURE, + .expect_p1 = 4, + .expect_p2 = 4 + }), "not long enough for expected trailing text"); + + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { + .line = "@@ -4,4", + .offset = 7, + .expect_suffix = " +", + .expect_result = FAILURE, + .expect_p1 = 9999, + .expect_p2 = 9999 + }), "not long enough for offset"); + + TEST(setup_static((struct test_case) { + .line = "@@ -4,4", + .offset = -1, + .expect_suffix = " +", + .expect_result = FAILURE, + .expect_p1 = 9999, + .expect_p2 = 9999 + }), "negative offset"); + + return test_done(); +}