On 06/17/2014 11:41 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > From: Hu Tao <hu...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > Signed-off-by: Hu Tao <hu...@cn.fujitsu.com> > Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > Tested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > > MST: split up patch > --- > qapi/string-output-visitor.c | 229 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > tests/test-string-output-visitor.c | 38 +++++- > 2 files changed, 255 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >
> +
> + l = sov->ranges;
> + while (l) {
> + Range *r = l->data;
> + format_string(sov, r, l->next != NULL, false);
> + l = l->next;
> + }
>
> if (sov->human) {
> - out = g_strdup_printf("%lld (%#llx)", (long long) *obj, (long long)
> *obj);
> - } else {
> - out = g_strdup_printf("%lld", (long long) *obj);
> + l = sov->ranges;
> + g_string_append(sov->string, " (");
> + while (l) {
> + Range *r = l->data;
> + format_string(sov, r, l->next != NULL, false);
Am I reading this correctly that in human mode, you are creating the string:
16-31 (16-31)
instead of
16-17 (10-1f)
because you forgot to pass 'true' as the human parameter on one of the
two calls to format_string? Also, this is a worsening of quality; the
old code would produce
16 (0x10)
to make it obvious which number was hex.
> +static void test_visitor_out_intList(TestOutputVisitorData *data,
> + const void *unused)
> +{
> + int64_t value[] = {0, 1, 9, 10, 16, 15, 14,
> + 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, INT64_MAX - 1, INT64_MAX};
No test of negative numbers?
> + str = string_output_get_string(data->sov);
> + g_assert(str != NULL);
> + g_assert_cmpstr(str, ==,
> + "0-1,3-6,9-16,21-22,9223372036854775806-9223372036854775807");
Shouldn't you also test the human output?
Probably worth a followup patch.
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
