Daniel Shahaf wrote: > +1 > > stef...@apache.org wrote on Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 21:23:35 -0000: > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1028104&view=rev > > Log: > > Adapt string unit test to recent behavioral changes. > > > > * subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/string-test.c > > (test10): relax tests on string capacity
Sure, +1 to your changes here. But what are the rest of these crazy "requirements" in this old test? [...] > > /* Test that: > > - * - The initial block was just the right fit. > > + * - The initial block was at least the right fit. > > + * - The initial block was not excessively large. Yup, great. > > * - The block more than doubled (because second string so long). This works, for typical alignments and this test data. But "more than doubled" is not necessary. A sensible test would be that it "at least doubled". > > * - The block grew by a power of 2. Why would we care whether it grew by a power of 2? Any growth by at least a factor of 2 is efficient and satisfactory. > > */ > > - if ((len_1 == (block_len_1 - 1)) > > - && ((block_len_2 / block_len_1) > 2) > > - && (((block_len_2 / block_len_1) % 2) == 0)) > > + if ((len_1 <= (block_len_1 - 1)) > > + && ((block_len_1 - len_1) <= APR_ALIGN_DEFAULT(1)) > > + && ((block_len_2 / block_len_1) > 2) > > + && (((block_len_2 / block_len_1) % 2) == 0)) That last line does NOT check that the block length grew by a power of two anyway. It checks it grew by a factor of [2 to 2.9999] or [4 to 4.9999] or [6 to 6.9999] or ... Let's axe that last line. - Julian > > return SVN_NO_ERROR; > > else > > return fail(pool, "test failed");
