On 12/27/10 11:49 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
bl...@apache.org wrote on Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 19:04:39 -0000:
Author: blair
Date: Mon Dec 27 19:04:39 2010
New Revision: 1053140
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1053140&view=rev
Log:
Add a unit test for svn_error_purge_tracing() that asserts that
SVN_ERR_ASSERT() fails when an error chain with only tracing errors is
passed in, which shouldn't happen in practice.
* subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/error-test.c
(test_error_purge_tracing):
Only if SVN_ERR__TRACING is defined, build an error chain with
only tracing errors and pass it to svn_error_purge_tracing(),
asserting that it returns a new error chain with a
SVN_ERR_ASSERTION_FAIL error.
Modified:
subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/error-test.c
Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/error-test.c
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/error-test.c?rev=1053140&r1=1053139&r2=1053140&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/error-test.c (original)
+++ subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/error-test.c Mon Dec 27
19:04:39 2010
@@ -111,8 +111,54 @@ test_error_purge_tracing(apr_pool_t *poo
"Tracing link found after purging the "
"following chain:");
}
-
svn_error_clear(err);
+
+#ifdef SVN_ERR__TRACING
+ /* Make an error chain containing only tracing errors and check that
+ svn_error_purge_tracing() asserts on it. */
+ {
+ svn_error_t err_copy, err2_copy;
+ svn_error_malfunction_handler_t orig_handler;
+
+ /* For this test, use a random error status. */
+ err = svn_error_create(SVN_ERR_BAD_UUID, NULL, SVN_ERR__TRACED);
+ err = svn_error_return(err);
+
+ /* Register a malfunction handler that doesn't call abort() to
+ check that a new error chain with a SVN_ERR_ASSERTION_FAIL is
+ returned. */
+ orig_handler =
+ svn_error_set_malfunction_handler(svn_error_raise_on_malfunction);
+ err2 = svn_error_purge_tracing(err);
+ svn_error_set_malfunction_handler(orig_handler);
+
+ err_copy = *err;
+
+ if (err2)
+ {
+ /* If err2 does share the same pool as err, then make a copy
+ of err2 before err is cleared. */
+ err2_copy = *err2;
+
+ svn_error_clear(err);
+
+ /* The returned error is only safe to clear if this assertion
+ holds, otherwise it has the same pool as the original
+ error. */
+ SVN_ERR_ASSERT(err_copy.pool != err2_copy.pool);
+
+ svn_error_clear(err2);
+
+ SVN_ERR_ASSERT(SVN_ERR_ASSERTION_FAIL == err2_copy.apr_err);
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ svn_error_clear(err);
+ SVN_ERR_ASSERT(err2);
The last assert will trigger whenever the else{} block is reached, is
that your intention?
Yes, because err2 should never be equal to SVN_NO_ERROR. I'm just managing the
error chain here.
Also: are you aware of SVN_TEST_ASSERT()?
Nope, I've updated the code to use SVN_TEST_ASSERT() in r1053174.
Also: formally, if you just got an SVN_ERR_ASSERTION_FAIL, the API
contract doesn't allow you to continue calling into svn libraries. In
other words, unless you verify that the "expected" assertion was
triggered, some day we might change the code, the test will hit some
other assertion --- and will happily ignore it :(
Where is this documented? That doesn't make sense in a multi-threaded context
as one would have to stop all threads.
There's always a chance we may catch another error if we change the code, don't
know if there's much to do about that.
Blair
