On 2018-05-10 18:02, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/09/2018 11:55 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> tests/check-qdict.c | 54
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+)
>>
>
>> +static void qdict_stringify_for_keyval_test(void)
>> +{
>> + QDict *dict = qdict_new();
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Test stringification of:
>> + *
>> + * {
>> + * "a": "null",
>> + * "b": 42,
>> + * "c": -23,
>> + * "d": false,
>> + * "e": null,
>> + * "f": "",
>> + * "g": 0.5,
>> + * "h": 0xffffffffffffffff,
>> + * "i": true,
>> + * "j": 0
>
> Is it worth testing fun things like '-0.0'?Sure, why not. Maybe even infinity, although I'm not quite sure the input visitor can handle it... >> + g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(dict, "a"), "null")); >> + g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(dict, "b"), "42")); >> + g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(dict, "c"), "-23")); >> + g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(dict, "d"), "off")); >> + g_assert(qobject_type(qdict_get(dict, "e")) == QTYPE_QNULL); > > Is it worth shortening this line to: > g_assert(qobject_to(QNull, qdict_get(dict, "e"))); I think explicitly checking the type is a bit more expressive. Max > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
