[libvirt] [PATCH] test: adding tests to virStrToDouble() inside virstringtest.

[John Ferlan]

On 06/24/2017 08:15 PM, Julio Faracco wrote:
> There are no occurrences of tests related to Strings and Double numbers 
> inside virstringtest.c. This commit introduces some tests to validate the 
> conversion. The test does not include locale changes yet.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Julio Faracco <jcfaracco at gmail.com>
> ---
>  tests/virstringtest.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 84 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/virstringtest.c b/tests/virstringtest.c
> index 97c6e76..32ce79c 100644
> --- a/tests/virstringtest.c
> +++ b/tests/virstringtest.c
> @@ -652,6 +652,52 @@ testStringToLong(const void *opaque)
>  }
>  
>  
> +struct stringToDoubleData {
> +    const char *str;
> +    const char *end_ptr;
> +    double res;
> +};
> +
> +/* This test checks if double strings are successfully converted to double
> + * number considering the byproduct string too. */
> +static int
> +testStringToDouble(const void *opaque)
> +{
> +    const struct stringToDoubleData *data = opaque;
> +    int ret = -1;
> +    char *end_ptr = NULL;
> +    double res = 0;
> +
> +    if (data->end_ptr) {
> +        ret = virStrToDouble(data->str, &end_ptr, &res);
> +    } else {
> +        /* end_ptr returns or a substring or an empty string.
> +         * It never returns a NULL pointer. */
> +        ret = virStrToDouble(data->str, NULL, &res);
> +    }

Not sure the comment makes sense...  Why not just one line:

ret = virStrToDouble(data->str, data->end_ptr ? &end_ptr : NULL, &res);

or combining with the subsequent "if (ret < 0) {" test:

if ((ret = virStrToDouble(data->str, data->end_ptr ? &end_ptr : NULL,
                          &res)) < 0) {


> +
> +    if (ret < 0) {
> +        fprintf(stderr, "Convert error of '%s', expected '%f'\n",

Should the format be %lf or %g?  I've see both used within libvirt code
- search around for VIR_TYPED_PARAM_DOUBLE, _TYPE_DOUBLE, or "param.d"
printing.

(similarly for the next %f usage as well)


> +                data->str, data->res);
> +        return ret;
> +    }
> +
> +    if (res != data->res) {
> +        fprintf(stderr, "Returned '%f', expected '%f'\n",
> +                res, data->res);
> +        return -1;
> +    }
> +
> +    /* Comparing substrings. */
> +    if (STRNEQ_NULLABLE(end_ptr, data->end_ptr)) {
> +        fprintf(stderr, "Expected substring '%s', but got '%s'\n",
> +                end_ptr, data->end_ptr);
> +        return -1;
> +    }
> +
> +    return ret;
> +}
> +
>  /* The point of this test is to check whether all members of the array are
>   * freed. The test has to be checked using valgrind. */
>  static int
> @@ -965,6 +1011,44 @@ mymain(void)
>      TEST_STRTOL("-18446744073709551616", NULL, 0, -1, 0U, -1,
>                  0LL, -1, 0ULL, -1);
>  
> +#define TEST_STRTOD(str, end_ptr, res)                                  \
> +    do {                                                                \
> +        struct stringToDoubleData data = {                              \
> +            str, end_ptr, res,                                          \
> +        };                                                              \
> +        if (virTestRun("virStringToDouble '" str "'",                   \
> +                       testStringToDouble, &data) < 0)                  \
> +            ret = -1;                                                   \
> +    } while(0)

This fails syntax-check due to no space between while and (0)

I can either make the suggested changes (perhaps someone else has a
strong feeling of using %g or %lf) or you can post a new patch. Either
way is fine.

John

> +
> +    /* Simple numbers. */
> +    TEST_STRTOD("0.0", NULL, 0);
> +    TEST_STRTOD("1.0", NULL, 1);
> +    TEST_STRTOD("3.14159", NULL, 3.14159);
> +    TEST_STRTOD("0.57721", NULL, 0.57721);
> +
> +    /* Testing ending string. */
> +    TEST_STRTOD("2.718", "", 2.718);
> +    TEST_STRTOD("2.718 281 828 459", " 281 828 459", 2.718);
> +    TEST_STRTOD("2.718,281,828,459", ",281,828,459", 2.718);
> +
> +    /* Scientific numbers. */
> +    TEST_STRTOD("3.14159e+000", NULL, 3.14159);
> +    TEST_STRTOD("2.00600e+003", NULL, 2006);
> +    TEST_STRTOD("1.00000e-010", NULL, 1e-010);
> +
> +    /* Negative numbers. */
> +    TEST_STRTOD("-1.6180339887", NULL, -1.6180339887);
> +    TEST_STRTOD("-0.00031e-010", NULL, -0.00031e-010);
> +
> +    /* Long numbers. */
> +    TEST_STRTOD("57089907708238388904078437636832797971793838081897.0",
> +                NULL,
> +                57089907708238388904078437636832797971793838081897.0);
> +    TEST_STRTOD("3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105",
> +                NULL,
> +                3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105);
> +
>      /* test virStringListFreeCount */
>      if (virTestRun("virStringListFreeCount", testVirStringListFreeCount,
>                     NULL) < 0)
>