[libvirt] [PATCH] test: adding tests to virStrToDouble() inside virstringtest.
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@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); + } + + if (ret < 0) { + fprintf(stderr, "Convert error of '%s', expected '%f'\n", + 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) + + /* 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) -- 2.7.4
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@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)
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@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@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)
participants (2)
-
John Ferlan -
Julio Faracco