On Thu, Sep 17, 2026 at 10:58:27AM +0200, Jonas Rebmann wrote: > On 2026-09-17 09:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 07:38:08PM +0200, Jonas Rebmann wrote: > > > The existing test_string_unescape() function follows a complex procedure > > > where it, given a set of UNESCAPE flags, appends multiple test fragments > > > and predicts their unescape result for the chosen set of flags. Rename > > > test_string_unescape() to a more descriptive > > > test_string_unescape_combined > > > > > > In preparation to add simple regression tests, introduce > > > test_string_unescape_one() which asserts on exactly one call to > > > string_unescape. > > > > > > Add some tests for corner cases which already pass. > > > > So, this is two-in-one patch change. Needs a split, but I'm not sure why > > we even need this. Can't your case be incorporated into the existing > > "combined" variant? > > They can not be incorporated into the combined variant because that > makes it impossible to control the size of the destination buffer. This > can not be fixed because the idea of the combined test is that all test > strings are combined into one buffer. The bugs fixed in this series only > occur when the destination buffer is limited.
We may modify the loop to provide the length of the destination buffer to be exactly what we expect, no? > Furthermore, for the regression tests, I want each test tailored for a > specific case and when it fails, to show me which one failed. > I'll update the commit message and split the commit. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
