From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39504) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dA9zZ-0004gW-GP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 May 2017 03:00:30 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dA9zU-0005gi-MX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 May 2017 03:00:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33860) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dA9zU-0005gR-EI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 May 2017 03:00:24 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BFCEA723 for ; Mon, 15 May 2017 07:00:23 +0000 (UTC) From: Markus Armbruster References: <20170509173559.31598-1-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <20170509173559.31598-5-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <87wp9mk2nn.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20170512090032.7ef4e878@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 09:00:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20170512090032.7ef4e878@redhat.com> (Luiz Capitulino's message of "Fri, 12 May 2017 09:00:32 -0400") Message-ID: <877f1i4nb5.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/17] qapi: merge QInt and QFloat in QNum List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Luiz Capitulino writes: > On Fri, 12 May 2017 08:30:36 +0200 > Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> Question for Luiz... >>=20 >> Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau writes: >>=20 >> [...] >> > diff --git a/tests/check-qnum.c b/tests/check-qnum.c >> > new file mode 100644 >> > index 0000000000..d08d35e85a >> > --- /dev/null >> > +++ b/tests/check-qnum.c >> > @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@ >> > +/* >> > + * QNum unit-tests. >> > + * >> > + * Copyright (C) 2009 Red Hat Inc. >> > + * >> > + * Authors: >> > + * Luiz Capitulino >> > + * >> > + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU LGPL, version 2.1= or later. >> > + * See the COPYING.LIB file in the top-level directory. >> > + */ >> > +#include "qemu/osdep.h" >> > + >> > +#include "qapi/qmp/qnum.h" >> > +#include "qapi/error.h" >> > +#include "qemu-common.h" >> > + >> > +/* >> > + * Public Interface test-cases >> > + * >> > + * (with some violations to access 'private' data) >> > + */ >> > + >> > +static void qnum_from_int_test(void) >> > +{ >> > + QNum *qi; >> > + const int value =3D -42; >> > + >> > + qi =3D qnum_from_int(value); >> > + g_assert(qi !=3D NULL); >> > + g_assert_cmpint(qi->u.i64, =3D=3D, value); >> > + g_assert_cmpint(qi->base.refcnt, =3D=3D, 1); >> > + g_assert_cmpint(qobject_type(QOBJECT(qi)), =3D=3D, QTYPE_QNUM); >> > + >> > + // destroy doesn't exit yet >> > + g_free(qi); >> > +}=20=20 >>=20 >> The comment is enigmatic.=20 > > It was meant for future generations to figure it out :) Hah! >> It was first written in commit 33837ba >> "Introduce QInt unit-tests", and got copied around since. In >> check-qlist.c, it's spelled "exist yet". > > Yes, "exit" is a typo it should be "exist". > >> What is "destroy", why doesn't it exit / exist now, but will exit / >> exist later? It can't be qnum_destroy_obj(), because that certainly >> exists already, exits already in the sense of returning, and shouldn't >> ever exit in the sense of terminating the program. >>=20 >> The comment applies to a g_free(). Why do we free directly instead >> decrementing the reference count? Perhaps the comment tries to explain >> that (if it does, it fails). > > In my personal style of writing unit-tests, I never use a method > in a test before testing it. So, as QDECREF() wasn't tested yet, > I wasn't allowed to use it. It's a good principle for organizing tests. > While I keep this principle when writing unit-tests today, this > particular case is very extreme and not useful at all. Today I'd just > go ahead and use QDECREF(). Makes sense. > The qint_destroy_test() in the original > commit is also very bogus, it's not really doing an useful test. It can demonstrate leaks under valgrind. But pretty much every other test can just as well, so... Marc-Andr=C3=A9, care to stick a cleanup patch into your series?