Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> writes:
> Suggested by Markus Armbruster:
>
> We should systematically cover the integers, in particular the
> boundaries (because that's where bugs like to hide):
>
> * Integers in [-2^63,0) can be visited with visit_type_int() and
> visit_type_number().
>
> * Integers in [0,2^63) can be visited with visit_type_int(),
> visit_type_uint64() and visit_type_number().
>
> * Integers in [2^63,2^64) can be visited with visit_type_uint64() and
> visit_type_number().
>
> * Integers outside [-2^63,2^53) can be visited with visit_type_number().
>
> In any case, visit_type_number() loses precision beyond 53 bits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
> ---
> tests/test-qobject-input-visitor.c | 38
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/test-qobject-input-visitor.c
> b/tests/test-qobject-input-visitor.c
> index 83d663d11d..f2ed3161af 100644
> --- a/tests/test-qobject-input-visitor.c
> +++ b/tests/test-qobject-input-visitor.c
> @@ -102,11 +102,11 @@ static Visitor
> *visitor_input_test_init_raw(TestInputVisitorData *data,
> {
> return visitor_input_test_init_internal(data, false, json_string, NULL);
> }
> -
Whoops.
> static void test_visitor_in_int(TestInputVisitorData *data,
> const void *unused)
> {
> int64_t res = 0;
> + double dbl;
> int value = -42;
> Visitor *v;
>
> @@ -114,6 +114,9 @@ static void test_visitor_in_int(TestInputVisitorData
> *data,
>
> visit_type_int(v, NULL, &res, &error_abort);
> g_assert_cmpint(res, ==, value);
> +
> + visit_type_number(v, NULL, &dbl, &error_abort);
> + g_assert_cmpfloat(dbl, ==, -42.0);
> }
>
> static void test_visitor_in_uint(TestInputVisitorData *data,
> @@ -121,6 +124,8 @@ static void test_visitor_in_uint(TestInputVisitorData
> *data,
> {
> Error *err = NULL;
> uint64_t res = 0;
> + int64_t i64;
> + double dbl;
> int value = 42;
> Visitor *v;
>
> @@ -129,8 +134,13 @@ static void test_visitor_in_uint(TestInputVisitorData
> *data,
> visit_type_uint64(v, NULL, &res, &error_abort);
> g_assert_cmpuint(res, ==, (uint64_t)value);
>
> - /* BUG: value between INT64_MIN and -1 accepted modulo 2^64 */
> + visit_type_int(v, NULL, &i64, &error_abort);
> + g_assert_cmpint(i64, ==, value);
>
> + visit_type_number(v, NULL, &dbl, &error_abort);
> + g_assert_cmpfloat(dbl, ==, value);
> +
> + /* BUG: value between INT64_MIN and -1 accepted modulo 2^64 */
> v = visitor_input_test_init(data, "%d", -value);
>
> visit_type_uint64(v, NULL, &res, &error_abort);
> @@ -142,6 +152,8 @@ static void test_visitor_in_uint(TestInputVisitorData
> *data,
>
> visit_type_uint64(v, NULL, &res, &err);
> error_free_or_abort(&err);
> +
> + visit_type_number(v, NULL, &dbl, &error_abort);
> }
>
> static void test_visitor_in_int_overflow(TestInputVisitorData *data,
> @@ -260,6 +272,26 @@ static void test_visitor_in_number(TestInputVisitorData
> *data,
> g_assert_cmpfloat(res, ==, value);
> }
>
> +static void test_visitor_in_large_number(TestInputVisitorData *data,
> + const void *unused)
> +{
> + Error *err = NULL;
> + double res = 0;
> + int64_t i64;
> + uint64_t u64;
> + Visitor *v;
> +
> + v = visitor_input_test_init(data, "-18446744073709551616"); /* -2^64 */
> +
> + visit_type_number(v, NULL, &res, &error_abort);
Shouldn't we check res has the expected value?
> +
> + visit_type_int(v, NULL, &i64, &err);
> + error_free_or_abort(&err);
> +
> + visit_type_uint64(v, NULL, &u64, &err);
> + error_free_or_abort(&err);
> +}
Not sure this is worth its own test. But then I'm never sure whether to
write heaps of small tests, or few larger ones. You decide.
> +
> static void test_visitor_in_number_keyval(TestInputVisitorData *data,
> const void *unused)
> {
> @@ -1253,6 +1285,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> NULL, test_visitor_in_bool_str_fail);
> input_visitor_test_add("/visitor/input/number",
> NULL, test_visitor_in_number);
> + input_visitor_test_add("/visitor/input/large_number",
> + NULL, test_visitor_in_large_number);
> input_visitor_test_add("/visitor/input/number_keyval",
> NULL, test_visitor_in_number_keyval);
> input_visitor_test_add("/visitor/input/number_str_keyval",
The new tests are welcome, but they don't "systematically cover the
integers". The easiest fix is to adjust the commit message's claims
down:
tests: Add more int/number ranges checks
Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
