On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 07:06:16PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/09/2014 18:29, Michael Roth ha scritto:
> > <snip>
> >
> >> > int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >> > {
> >> > g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
> >> > @@ -174,9 +200,20 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >> > type_register_static(&static_prop_type);
> >> > type_register_static(&dynamic_prop_type);
> >> >
> >> > - g_test_add_func("/qdev/properties/static/default",
> >> > test_static_prop);
> >> > - g_test_add_func("/qdev/properties/static/global",
> >> > test_static_globalprop);
> >> > - g_test_add_func("/qdev/properties/dynamic/global",
> >> > test_dynamic_globalprop);
> >> > + g_test_add_func("/qdev/properties/static/default/subprocess",
> >> > + test_static_prop_subprocess);
> >> > + g_test_add_func("/qdev/properties/static/default",
> >> > + test_static_prop);
> > Since in the code above test_static_prop is actually the test that re-runs
> > /qdev/properties/static/default/subprocess under g_test_trap_subprocess,
> > aren't
> > the tests (or test function implementations) backwards?
> >
>
> No, it's correct. The parent test is the parent function, the child
> test is the subprocess function. The child test is automagically
> skipped by GTest, I don't know how that works.
>
> Paolo
Based on the "subprocess" string in the path.
