3:04 p.m.
Hi John,
Thanks for your points.
The V2 is ready... I will use %lf for now because the intention of output is
show the error with a clear message.
%lf is easier to check, I believe. Well, any other suggestions are welcome.
2017-07-08 10:59 GMT-03:00 John Ferlan <jferlan(a)redhat.com>:
On 06/24/2017 08:15 PM, Julio Faracco wrote:
> There are no occurrences of tests related to Strings and Double numbers
> inside virstringtest.c. This commit introduces some tests to validate the
> conversion. The test does not include locale changes yet.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julio Faracco <jcfaracco(a)gmail.com>
> ---
> tests/virstringtest.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/virstringtest.c b/tests/virstringtest.c
> index 97c6e76..32ce79c 100644
> --- a/tests/virstringtest.c
> +++ b/tests/virstringtest.c
> @@ -652,6 +652,52 @@ testStringToLong(const void *opaque)
> }
>
>
> +struct stringToDoubleData {
> + const char *str;
> + const char *end_ptr;
> + double res;
> +};
> +
> +/* This test checks if double strings are successfully converted to double
> + * number considering the byproduct string too. */
> +static int
> +testStringToDouble(const void *opaque)
> +{
> + const struct stringToDoubleData *data = opaque;
> + int ret = -1;
> + char *end_ptr = NULL;
> + double res = 0;
> +
> + if (data->end_ptr) {
> + ret = virStrToDouble(data->str, &end_ptr, &res);
> + } else {
> + /* end_ptr returns or a substring or an empty string.
> + * It never returns a NULL pointer. */
> + ret = virStrToDouble(data->str, NULL, &res);
> + }
Not sure the comment makes sense... Why not just one line:
ret = virStrToDouble(data->str, data->end_ptr ? &end_ptr : NULL, &res);
or combining with the subsequent "if (ret < 0) {" test:
if ((ret = virStrToDouble(data->str, data->end_ptr ? &end_ptr : NULL,
&res)) < 0) {
> +
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "Convert error of '%s', expected
'%f'\n",
Should the format be %lf or %g? I've see both used within libvirt code
- search around for VIR_TYPED_PARAM_DOUBLE, _TYPE_DOUBLE, or "param.d"
printing.
(similarly for the next %f usage as well)
> + data->str, data->res);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + if (res != data->res) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "Returned '%f', expected '%f'\n",
> + res, data->res);
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + /* Comparing substrings. */
> + if (STRNEQ_NULLABLE(end_ptr, data->end_ptr)) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "Expected substring '%s', but got
'%s'\n",
> + end_ptr, data->end_ptr);
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> /* The point of this test is to check whether all members of the array are
> * freed. The test has to be checked using valgrind. */
> static int
> @@ -965,6 +1011,44 @@ mymain(void)
> TEST_STRTOL("-18446744073709551616", NULL, 0, -1, 0U, -1,
> 0LL, -1, 0ULL, -1);
>
> +#define TEST_STRTOD(str, end_ptr, res) \
> + do { \
> + struct stringToDoubleData data = { \
> + str, end_ptr, res, \
> + }; \
> + if (virTestRun("virStringToDouble '" str "'",
\
> + testStringToDouble, &data) < 0) \
> + ret = -1; \
> + } while(0)
This fails syntax-check due to no space between while and (0)
I can either make the suggested changes (perhaps someone else has a
strong feeling of using %g or %lf) or you can post a new patch. Either
way is fine.
John
> +
> + /* Simple numbers. */
> + TEST_STRTOD("0.0", NULL, 0);
> + TEST_STRTOD("1.0", NULL, 1);
> + TEST_STRTOD("3.14159", NULL, 3.14159);
> + TEST_STRTOD("0.57721", NULL, 0.57721);
> +
> + /* Testing ending string. */
> + TEST_STRTOD("2.718", "", 2.718);
> + TEST_STRTOD("2.718 281 828 459", " 281 828 459", 2.718);
> + TEST_STRTOD("2.718,281,828,459", ",281,828,459", 2.718);
> +
> + /* Scientific numbers. */
> + TEST_STRTOD("3.14159e+000", NULL, 3.14159);
> + TEST_STRTOD("2.00600e+003", NULL, 2006);
> + TEST_STRTOD("1.00000e-010", NULL, 1e-010);
> +
> + /* Negative numbers. */
> + TEST_STRTOD("-1.6180339887", NULL, -1.6180339887);
> + TEST_STRTOD("-0.00031e-010", NULL, -0.00031e-010);
> +
> + /* Long numbers. */
> + TEST_STRTOD("57089907708238388904078437636832797971793838081897.0",
> + NULL,
> + 57089907708238388904078437636832797971793838081897.0);
> + TEST_STRTOD("3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105",
> + NULL,
> + 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105);
> +
> /* test virStringListFreeCount */
> if (virTestRun("virStringListFreeCount", testVirStringListFreeCount,
> NULL) < 0)
>