On 28.10.2010 17:06, Julian Foad wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 15:52 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
+1
stef...@apache.org wrote on Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 21:23:35 -0000:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1028104&view=rev
Log:
Adapt string unit test to recent behavioral changes.
* subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/string-test.c
(test10): relax tests on string capacity
Sure, +1 to your changes here.
But what are the rest of these crazy "requirements" in this old test?
[...]
/* Test that:
- * - The initial block was just the right fit.
+ * - The initial block was at least the right fit.
+ * - The initial block was not excessively large.
Yup, great.
* - The block more than doubled (because second string so long).
This works, for typical alignments and this test data. But "more than
doubled" is not necessary. A sensible test would be that it "at least
doubled".
* - The block grew by a power of 2.
Why would we care whether it grew by a power of 2? Any growth by at
least a factor of 2 is efficient and satisfactory.
*/
- if ((len_1 == (block_len_1 - 1))
-&& ((block_len_2 / block_len_1)> 2)
-&& (((block_len_2 / block_len_1) % 2) == 0))
+ if ((len_1<= (block_len_1 - 1))
+&& ((block_len_1 - len_1)<= APR_ALIGN_DEFAULT(1))
+&& ((block_len_2 / block_len_1)> 2)
+&& (((block_len_2 / block_len_1) % 2) == 0))
That last line does NOT check that the block length grew by a power of
two anyway. It checks it grew by a factor of [2 to 2.9999] or [4 to
4.9999] or [6 to 6.9999] or ...
Let's axe that last line.
Done in r1028340.
Apologies in advance for the merge conflict this will cause when merging
your change to trunk.
No worries.
BTW, is there any policy on documenting merge conflict
so that people can have a second look at it if they care?
-- Stefan^2.
