Re: [PATCH v4] tests: move t0009-prio-queue.sh to the new unit testing framework

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

> diff --git a/t/unit-tests/t-prio-queue.c b/t/unit-tests/t-prio-queue.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..d78b002f9ea
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/unit-tests/t-prio-queue.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
> +#include "test-lib.h"
> +#include "prio-queue.h"
> +
> +static int intcmp(const void *va, const void *vb, void *data UNUSED)
> +{
> +	const int *a = va, *b = vb;
> +	return *a - *b;
> +}
> +
> +
> +#define MISSING  -1
> +#define DUMP	 -2
> +#define STACK	 -3
> +#define GET	 -4
> +#define REVERSE  -5
> +
> +static int show(int *v)
> +{
> +	return v ? *v : MISSING;
> +}
> +
> +static void test_prio_queue(int *input, int *result, size_t input_size)
> +{
> +	struct prio_queue pq = { intcmp };
> +
> +	for (int i = 0, j = 0; i < input_size; i++) {
> +		void *peek, *get;
> +		switch(input[i]) {

Style: in this codebase, a flow control keyword followed by a
parenthesized stuff always get a single SP before the parenthesis.

		switch (input[i]) {

There are similar style violations in this patch with if().

> +		case GET:
> +			peek = prio_queue_peek(&pq);
> +			get = prio_queue_get(&pq);
> +			if (!check(peek == get))
> +				return;
> +			if(!check_int(result[j++], ==, show(get)))
> +				test_msg("failed at result[] index %d", j-1);
> +			break;
> +		case DUMP:
> +			while ((peek = prio_queue_peek(&pq))) {
> +				get = prio_queue_get(&pq);
> +				if (!check(peek == get))
> +					return;
> +				if(!check_int(result[j++], ==, show(get)))
> +					test_msg("failed at result[] index %d", j-1);
> +			}
> +			break;

OK.  So this one checks as we go.  I am not sure how easy to grok a
breakage diagnosis with these giving the same message, without
giving any context of the failure (e.g. when we are fed

	INPUT  = 6 2 4 GET 5 3 GET GET 1 DUMP
	EXPECT = 2 3 4 1 5 6

and for some reason if the first GET did not yield expected 2 but
gave us, say, 6, we only see "left: 2, right: 6" followed by "failed
at result[] index 0", and nothing else.  

If it said something like "We pushed 6, 2, 4 and then did GET" to
give the reader a bit more context, it would make it easier to see
why we were complaining, i.e. expecting to see 2, instead getting 6.
But perhaps that is too much to ask to this code?

I dunno.  Those who wanted to see an easier-to-diagnose output may
have better ideas.

Thanks.

> +		case STACK:
> +			pq.compare = NULL;
> +			break;
> +		case REVERSE:
> +			prio_queue_reverse(&pq);
> +			break;
> +		default:
> +			prio_queue_put(&pq, &input[i]);
> +			break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	clear_prio_queue(&pq);
> +}
> +
> +#define BASIC_INPUT 2, 6, 3, 10, 9, 5, 7, 4, 5, 8, 1, DUMP
> +#define BASIC_RESULT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
> +
> +#define MIXED_PUT_GET_INPUT 6, 2, 4, GET, 5, 3, GET, GET, 1, DUMP
> +#define MIXED_PUT_GET_RESULT 2, 3, 4, 1, 5, 6
> +
> +#define EMPTY_QUEUE_INPUT 1, 2, GET, GET, GET, 1, 2, GET, GET, GET
> +#define EMPTY_QUEUE_RESULT 1, 2, MISSING, 1, 2, MISSING
> +
> +#define STACK_INPUT STACK, 8, 1, 5, 4, 6, 2, 3, DUMP
> +#define STACK_RESULT 3, 2, 6, 4, 5, 1, 8
> +
> +#define REVERSE_STACK_INPUT STACK, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, REVERSE, DUMP
> +#define REVERSE_STACK_RESULT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
> +
> +#define TEST_INPUT(INPUT, RESULT, name)			\
> +  static void test_##name(void)				\
> +{								\
> +	int input[] = {INPUT};					\
> +	int result[] = {RESULT};				\
> +	test_prio_queue(input, result, ARRAY_SIZE(input));	\
> +}
> +
> +TEST_INPUT(BASIC_INPUT, BASIC_RESULT, basic)
> +TEST_INPUT(MIXED_PUT_GET_INPUT, MIXED_PUT_GET_RESULT, mixed)
> +TEST_INPUT(EMPTY_QUEUE_INPUT, EMPTY_QUEUE_RESULT, empty)
> +TEST_INPUT(STACK_INPUT, STACK_RESULT, stack)
> +TEST_INPUT(REVERSE_STACK_INPUT, REVERSE_STACK_RESULT, reverse)
> +
> +int cmd_main(int argc, const char **argv)
> +{
> +	TEST(test_basic(), "prio-queue works for basic input");
> +	TEST(test_mixed(), "prio-queue works for mixed put & get commands");
> +	TEST(test_empty(), "prio-queue works when queue is empty");
> +	TEST(test_stack(), "prio-queue works when used as a LIFO stack");
> +	TEST(test_reverse(), "prio-queue works when LIFO stack is reversed");
> +
> +	return test_done();
> +}
>
> base-commit: 1a87c842ece327d03d08096395969aca5e0a6996