On 20.11.18 18:26, Eric Blake wrote: > On 11/20/18 11:20 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 11/20/18 11:06 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 11/20/18 3:25 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> Test that very big/small values are not accepted and that ranges with >>>> only one element work. Also test that ranges are ascending and cannot >>>> have more than 65536 elements. >>>> >>>> Rename expect4 to expect5, as we will be moving that to a separate ulist >>>> test after the rework. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> tests/test-string-input-visitor.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> >> >> Do we also want to test garbage strings like: >> >> "1-" (incomplete range) >> "1X-2" (garbage suffix on first element) >> "1-2X" (garbage suffix on second element) >> >> and/or >> >> "-2--1" (valid range of signed integers) >> "-1--2" (questionable whether this is valid for the two largest unsigned >> integers) > > Or even " 1- 2" (we permit leading whitespace for plain integers - do we > also permit it in both sides of a range)? Also, if we permit whitespace > after the range '-', should we permit it beforehand? > > These sorts of questions may be fine in followup patches. >
As always, you can never cover all cases during tests :) While these things surely make sense, I will not add them right now. As you said, we can do that later. Taking about spaces: I think spaces before the "-" are not supported before/after the rewrite (I remember that strto.* does not skip over them). Spaces after the space should be covered by strto* automatically (strto.* skips over leading spaces). Thanks! -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
