Committed after some further editorialization.
--
nathan
Hi Nathan,
> > Make sense. Here is the corrected patch.
>
> I trimmed this down some more while trying to keep the coverage the same.
LGTM except for a slight issue with double semicolons at
test_binaryheap.c:160. Here is the updated patch.
From 43718022ac914be9e4345597586e7b5225a14e06 Mon Sep 17
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:02:22PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
>> I'm not sure I see much point in testing both min-heaps and max-heaps. The
>> only difference between the two is in the comparator, so IMHO the extra
>> tests really only serve to test the test comparator.
>
> Make sense. Her
Hi Nathan,
> Adding some tests here seems like a good idea.
>
> I'm not sure I see much point in testing both min-heaps and max-heaps. The
> only difference between the two is in the comparator, so IMHO the extra
> tests really only serve to test the test comparator.
Make sense. Here is the corr
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 06:16:10PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> The proposed patch adds tests for binaryheap.c. This is similar to our
> tests for RB-trees in test_rbtree.c.
Adding some tests here seems like a good idea.
I'm not sure I see much point in testing both min-heaps and max-heaps
Hi,
The proposed patch adds tests for binaryheap.c. This is similar to our
tests for RB-trees in test_rbtree.c.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
v1-0001-Add-tests-for-binaryheap.c.patch
Description: Binary data
