| Message ID | 20180509165530.29561-9-mreitz@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 05/09/2018 11:55 AM, Max Reitz wrote: > Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> > --- > 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'? > + 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"))); Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
On 2018-05-10 18:02, Eric Blake wrote: > On 05/09/2018 11:55 AM, Max Reitz wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> >> --- >> 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 <eblake@redhat.com>
On 05/11/2018 01:13 PM, Max Reitz wrote: >>> + * "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... JSON can't handle Inf or NaN, even if the input visitor can. So probably best to not worry about those. >>> + 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. Okay (qobject_to() checks the type under the hood, and returns non-NULL only when it was the right type - but I see your point about that being a bit more magic)
diff --git a/tests/check-qdict.c b/tests/check-qdict.c index 93e2112b6d..ef5d17f815 100644 --- a/tests/check-qdict.c +++ b/tests/check-qdict.c @@ -973,6 +973,57 @@ static void qdict_stress_test(void) qobject_unref(qdict); } +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 + * } + * + * Note that null is not transformed into a string and remains a + * QNull. + */ + + qdict_put_str(dict, "a", "null"); + qdict_put_int(dict, "b", 42); + qdict_put_int(dict, "c", -23); + qdict_put_bool(dict, "d", false); + qdict_put_null(dict, "e"); + qdict_put_str(dict, "f", ""); + qdict_put(dict, "g", qnum_from_double(0.5)); + qdict_put(dict, "h", qnum_from_uint(0xffffffffffffffffull)); + qdict_put_bool(dict, "i", true); + qdict_put_int(dict, "j", 0); + + qdict_stringify_for_keyval(dict); + + 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); + g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(dict, "f"), "")); + g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(dict, "g"), "0.5")); + g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(dict, "h"), "18446744073709551615")); + g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(dict, "i"), "on")); + g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(dict, "j"), "0")); + + qobject_unref(dict); +} + int main(int argc, char **argv) { g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL); @@ -1010,6 +1061,9 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) g_test_add_func("/public/rename_keys", qdict_rename_keys_test); + g_test_add_func("/public/stringify_for_keyval", + qdict_stringify_for_keyval_test); + /* The Big one */ if (g_test_slow()) { g_test_add_func("/stress/test", qdict_stress_test);
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> --- tests/check-qdict.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+)