On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Thomas H.P. Andersen <pho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 12:15:24PM -0800, Thomas H.P. Andersen wrote: >>> src/test/test-env-replace.c | 135 >>> +++++++++++++++++++------------------------- >>> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-) >>> >>> New commits: >>> commit 1f28b2deb4e118cd2d2a5138ccb4cc45841c136d >>> Author: Thomas Hindoe Paaboel Andersen <pho...@gmail.com> >>> Date: Thu Feb 7 21:10:31 2013 +0100 >>> >>> test-env-replace: assert results instead of printing them >> Hi Thomas, >> I think that printing of the results is quite useful - when something goes >> wrong. Whatever is printed goes into the test log anyway, so I think >> those print statements should be kept. > > Hi Zbyszek, > > To make sense of the results you will have to look at both the test > log and the code. I mean, just seeing lines like "BAR BARwaldo" in the > log is not helpful without also looking at the test code :) With the > asserts both the input and expected output can be seen directly in the > code. For the log perhaps it would be okay to only write the expected > result vs. actual result for failing asserts? Like: > Assert failed. Expected "BAR BARwaldo" but got "BAR BAR". ? > > We could make an assert_eq(char *a, char *b) to handle that without > cluttering the code with lots of printing. > Or I can just add the printfs/puts back. It is not something I feel > strongly about :)
Now that I re-read that I guess I was not very clear. Sorry. Which way should I go? a) write only failed asserts to the log (keep the code as it is) b) write both failed and passed asserts to the log (perhaps handled by an "assert_eq" helper function) c) write all/some results to the log (put back the printf's) _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel