On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:10:41AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 18:30:51 -0300
> Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Test for partial path lookup using object_resolve_path*().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > tests/check-qom-proplist.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/check-qom-proplist.c b/tests/check-qom-proplist.c
> > index 8e432e9..abafbd7 100644
> > --- a/tests/check-qom-proplist.c
> > +++ b/tests/check-qom-proplist.c
> > @@ -568,6 +568,46 @@ static void test_dummy_delchild(void)
> > object_unparent(OBJECT(dev));
> > }
> >
> > +static void test_qom_partial_path(void)
> > +{
> > + Object *root = object_get_objects_root();
> > + Object *cont1 = container_get(root, "/cont1");
> > + Object *obj1 = object_new(TYPE_DUMMY);
> > + Object *obj2a = object_new(TYPE_DUMMY);
> > + Object *obj2b = object_new(TYPE_DUMMY);
> > + bool ambiguous;
> > +
> > + /* Objects created:
> > + * /cont1
> > + * /cont1/obj1
> > + * /cont1/obj2 (obj2a)
> > + * /obj2 (obj2b)
> > + */
> > + object_property_add_child(cont1, "obj1", obj1, &error_abort);
> > + object_unref(obj1);
> > + object_property_add_child(cont1, "obj2", obj2a, &error_abort);
> > + object_unref(obj2a);
> > + object_property_add_child(root, "obj2", obj2b, &error_abort);
> > + object_unref(obj2b);
> > +
> > + ambiguous = false;
> > + g_assert(!object_resolve_path_type("", TYPE_DUMMY, &ambiguous));
> > + g_assert(ambiguous);
> > +
> > + ambiguous = false;
> > + g_assert(!object_resolve_path("obj2", &ambiguous));
> > + g_assert(ambiguous);
> > +
> > + ambiguous = false;
> > + g_assert(object_resolve_path("obj1", &ambiguous) == obj1);
> > + g_assert(!ambiguous);
>
> I'd also add test case for
> object_resolve_path(..., NULL)
They are added by patch 2/2, after the bug is fixed.
>
> > +
> > + object_unparent(obj1);
> > + object_unparent(obj2a);
> > + object_unparent(obj2b);
> Are above unparenting is necessary?
>
> > + object_unparent(cont1);
> Wouldn't parent destruction sufficient to trigger
> implicit destruction of children?
Probably it is. I will test it.
--
Eduardo
