On Fri, 12 May 2017 08:30:36 +0200 Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Question for Luiz... > > Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> writes: > > [...] > > diff --git a/tests/check-qnum.c b/tests/check-qnum.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000..d08d35e85a > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tests/check-qnum.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@ > > +/* > > + * QNum unit-tests. > > + * > > + * Copyright (C) 2009 Red Hat Inc. > > + * > > + * Authors: > > + * Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> > > + * > > + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU LGPL, version 2.1 or > > later. > > + * See the COPYING.LIB file in the top-level directory. > > + */ > > +#include "qemu/osdep.h" > > + > > +#include "qapi/qmp/qnum.h" > > +#include "qapi/error.h" > > +#include "qemu-common.h" > > + > > +/* > > + * Public Interface test-cases > > + * > > + * (with some violations to access 'private' data) > > + */ > > + > > +static void qnum_from_int_test(void) > > +{ > > + QNum *qi; > > + const int value = -42; > > + > > + qi = qnum_from_int(value); > > + g_assert(qi != NULL); > > + g_assert_cmpint(qi->u.i64, ==, value); > > + g_assert_cmpint(qi->base.refcnt, ==, 1); > > + g_assert_cmpint(qobject_type(QOBJECT(qi)), ==, QTYPE_QNUM); > > + > > + // destroy doesn't exit yet > > + g_free(qi); > > +} > > The comment is enigmatic. It was meant for future generations to figure it out :) > It was first written in commit 33837ba > "Introduce QInt unit-tests", and got copied around since. In > check-qlist.c, it's spelled "exist yet". Yes, "exit" is a typo it should be "exist". > What is "destroy", why doesn't it exit / exist now, but will exit / > exist later? It can't be qnum_destroy_obj(), because that certainly > exists already, exits already in the sense of returning, and shouldn't > ever exit in the sense of terminating the program. > > The comment applies to a g_free(). Why do we free directly instead > decrementing the reference count? Perhaps the comment tries to explain > that (if it does, it fails). In my personal style of writing unit-tests, I never use a method in a test before testing it. So, as QDECREF() wasn't tested yet, I wasn't allowed to use it. While I keep this principle when writing unit-tests today, this particular case is very extreme and not useful at all. Today I'd just go ahead and use QDECREF(). The qint_destroy_test() in the original commit is also very bogus, it's not really doing an useful test.