gparted/tests/test_BlockSpecial.cc

463 lines
15 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

/* Copyright (C) 2017 Mike Fleetwood
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*/
/* Test BlockSpecial
*
* In order to make the tests runable by non-root users in a wide
* variety of environments as possible the tests try to assume as small
* a set of available files as possible and discovers used block device
* names and symbolic link name. The following files are explicitly
* needed for the tests:
*
* Name Access Note
* ------------------------- ------- -----
* / Stat
* /proc/partitions Stat
* Read To find any two block
* devices
* /dev/BLOCK0 Stat First entry from
* /proc/partitions
* /dev/BLOCK1 stat Second entry from
* /proc/partitions
* /dev/disk/by-path/ Readdir To find any symlink to a
* block device
* /dev/disk/by-path/SYMLINK Stat First directory entry
* /dev/RBLOCK Stat Device to which SYMLINK
* refers
*
* Other dummy names are pre-loaded into the internal BlockSpecial cache
* and never queried from the file system.
*/
#include "BlockSpecial.h"
#include "gtest/gtest.h"
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <dirent.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <glibmm/ustring.h>
namespace GParted
{
// Print method for a BlockSpecial object
std::ostream& operator<<( std::ostream & out, const BlockSpecial & bs )
{
out << "BlockSpecial{\"" << bs.m_name << "\"," << bs.m_major << "," << bs.m_minor << "}";
return out;
}
// Helper to construct and return message for equality assertion used in:
// EXPECT_BSEQTUP( bs, name, major, minor )
// Reference:
// Google Test, AdvancedGuide, Using a Predicate-Formatter
::testing::AssertionResult CompareHelperBS2TUP( const char * bs_expr, const char * name_expr,
const char * major_expr, const char * minor_expr,
const BlockSpecial & bs, const Glib::ustring & name,
unsigned long major, unsigned long minor )
{
if ( bs.m_name == name && bs.m_major == major && bs.m_minor == minor )
return ::testing::AssertionSuccess();
else
return ::testing::AssertionFailure()
<< " Expected: " << bs_expr << "\n"
<< " Which is: " << bs << "\n"
<< "To be equal to: (" << name_expr << "," << major_expr << "," << major_expr << ")";
}
// Nonfatal assertion that BlockSpecial is equal to tuple (name, major, minor)
#define EXPECT_BSEQTUP(bs, name, major, minor) \
EXPECT_PRED_FORMAT4(CompareHelperBS2TUP, bs, name, major, minor)
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
// Helper to print two compared BlockSpecial objects on failure.
// Usage:
// EXPECT_TRUE( bs1 == bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
#define ON_FAILURE_WHERE(b1, b2) \
" Where: " << #b1 << " = " << (b1) << "\n" \
" And: " << #b2 << " = " << (b2);
// Return block device names numbered 0 upwards like "/dev/sda" by reading entries from
// /proc/partitions.
static std::string get_block_name( unsigned want )
{
std::ifstream proc_partitions( "/proc/partitions" );
if ( ! proc_partitions )
{
ADD_FAILURE() << __func__ << "(): Failed to open '/proc/partitions'";
return "";
}
std::string line;
char name[100] = "";
unsigned entry = 0;
while ( getline( proc_partitions, line ) )
{
if ( sscanf( line.c_str(), "%*u %*u %*u %99s", name ) == 1 )
{
if ( entry == want )
break;
entry ++;
}
}
proc_partitions.close();
if ( entry == want )
return std::string( "/dev/" ) + name;
ADD_FAILURE() << __func__ << "(): Entry " << want << " not found in '/proc/partitions'";
return "";
}
// Return symbolic link to a block device by reading the first entry in the directory
// /dev/disk/by-path/.
static std::string get_link_name()
{
DIR * dir = opendir( "/dev/disk/by-path" );
if ( dir == NULL )
{
ADD_FAILURE() << __func__ << "(): Failed to open directory '/dev/disk/by-path'";
return "";
}
bool found = false;
struct dirent * dentry;
// Silence GCC [-Wparentheses] warning with double parentheses
while ( ( dentry = readdir( dir ) ) )
{
if ( strcmp( dentry->d_name, "." ) != 0 &&
strcmp( dentry->d_name, ".." ) != 0 )
{
found = true;
break;
}
}
closedir( dir );
if ( found )
return std::string( "/dev/disk/by-path/" ) + dentry->d_name;
ADD_FAILURE() << __func__ << "(): No entries found in directory '/dev/disk/by-path'";
return "";
}
// Follow symbolic link return real path.
static std::string follow_link_name( std::string link )
{
char * rpath = realpath( link.c_str(), NULL );
if ( rpath == NULL )
{
ADD_FAILURE() << __func__ << "(): Failed to resolve symbolic link '" << link << "'";
return "";
}
std::string rpath_copy = rpath;
free( rpath );
return rpath_copy;
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, UnnamedBlockSpecialObject )
{
// Test default constructor produces empty BlockSpecial object ("", 0, 0).
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs;
EXPECT_BSEQTUP( bs, "", 0, 0 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, NamedBlockSpecialObjectPlainFile )
{
// Test any named plain file or directory (actually any non-block special name)
// produces BlockSpecial object (name, 0, 0).
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs( "/" );
EXPECT_BSEQTUP( bs, "/", 0, 0 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, NamedBlockSpecialObjectPlainFileDuplicate )
{
// Test second constructed BlockSpecial object with the same named plain file or
// directory, where the major and minor numbers are retrieved via internal
// BlockSpecial cache, produce an equivalent object (name, 0, 0).
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1( "/" );
BlockSpecial bs2( "/" );
EXPECT_BSEQTUP( bs1, "/", 0, 0 );
EXPECT_BSEQTUP( bs2, "/", 0, 0 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, NamedBlockSpecialObjectBlockDevice )
{
std::string bname = get_block_name( 0 );
// Test any block special name produces BlockSpecial object (name, major, minor).
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs( bname );
EXPECT_STREQ( bs.m_name.c_str(), bname.c_str() );
EXPECT_TRUE( bs.m_major > 0 || bs.m_minor > 0 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, NamedBlockSpecialObjectBlockDeviceDuplicate )
{
std::string bname = get_block_name( 0 );
// Test that a second object with the same name of a block device produces the
// same (name, major, minor). Checking internal BlockSpecial caching again.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1( bname );
BlockSpecial bs2( bname );
EXPECT_STREQ( bs1.m_name.c_str(), bs2.m_name.c_str() );
EXPECT_EQ( bs1.m_major, bs2.m_major );
EXPECT_EQ( bs1.m_minor, bs2.m_minor );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, TwoNamedBlockSpecialObjectBlockDevices )
{
std::string bname1 = get_block_name( 0 );
std::string bname2 = get_block_name( 1 );
// Test that two different named block devices produce different
// (name, major, minor).
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1( bname1 );
BlockSpecial bs2( bname2 );
EXPECT_STRNE( bs1.m_name.c_str(), bs2.m_name.c_str() );
EXPECT_TRUE( bs1.m_major != bs2.m_major || bs1.m_minor != bs2.m_minor );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, NamedBlockSpecialObjectBySymlinkMatches )
{
std::string lname = get_link_name();
std::string bname = follow_link_name( lname );
// Test that a symbolic link to a block device and the named block device produce
// BlockSpecial objects with different names but the same major, minor pair.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial lnk( lname );
BlockSpecial bs( bname );
EXPECT_STRNE( lnk.m_name.c_str(), bs.m_name.c_str() );
EXPECT_EQ( lnk.m_major, bs.m_major );
EXPECT_EQ( lnk.m_minor, bs.m_minor );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, PreRegisteredCacheUsedBeforeFileSystem )
{
// Test that the cache is used before querying the file system by registering a
// deliberately wrong major, minor pair for /dev/null and ensuring those are the
// major, minor numbers reported for the device.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial::register_block_special( "/dev/null", 4, 8 );
BlockSpecial bs( "/dev/null" );
EXPECT_BSEQTUP( bs, "/dev/null", 4, 8 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorEqualsTwoEmptyObjects )
{
// Test equality of two empty BlockSpecial objects.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1;
BlockSpecial bs2;
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_TRUE( bs1 == bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorEqualsSamePlainFiles )
{
// Test equality of two named plain file or directory BlockSpecial objects;
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1( "/" );
BlockSpecial bs2( "/" );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_TRUE( bs1 == bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorEqualsEmptyObjectAndPlainFile )
{
// Test inequality of empty and plain file BlockSpecial objects.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1;
BlockSpecial bs2( "/" );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 == bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorEqualsDifferentPlainFiles )
{
// Test inequality of two different plain file or directory BlockSpecial objects;
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1( "/" );
BlockSpecial bs2( "/proc/partitions" );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 == bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorEqualsSameBlockDevices )
{
std::string bname = get_block_name( 0 );
// Test equality of two BlockSpecial objects using the same named block device.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1( bname );
BlockSpecial bs2( bname );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_TRUE( bs1 == bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorEqualsEmptyObjectAndBlockDevice )
{
std::string bname = get_block_name( 0 );
// Test inequality of empty and named block device BlockSpecial objects.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1;
BlockSpecial bs2( bname );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 == bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorEqualsPlainFileAndBlockDevice )
{
std::string bname = get_block_name( 0 );
// Test inequality of plain file and block device BlockSpecial objects.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1( "/" );
BlockSpecial bs2( bname );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 == bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorEqualsTwoDifferentBlockDevices )
{
std::string bname1 = get_block_name( 0 );
std::string bname2 = get_block_name( 1 );
// Test inequality of two different named block device BlockSpecial objects.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1( bname1 );
BlockSpecial bs2( bname2 );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 == bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorEqualsSameBlockDevicesWithMinorZero )
{
// Test for fix in bug #771670. Ensure that block devices with minor number 0 are
// compared by major, minor pair rather than by name.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial::register_block_special( "/dev/mapper/encrypted_swap", 254, 0 );
BlockSpecial::register_block_special( "/dev/dm-0", 254, 0 );
BlockSpecial bs1( "/dev/mapper/encrypted_swap" );
BlockSpecial bs2( "/dev/dm-0" );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_TRUE( bs1 == bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects )
{
// Test one empty BlockSpecial object is not ordered before another empty one.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1;
BlockSpecial bs2;
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorLessThanSamePlainFiles )
{
// Test one plain file BlockSpecial object is not ordered before another of the
// same name.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1( "/" );
BlockSpecial bs2( "/" );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorLessThanDifferentPlainFiles )
{
// Test one plain file BlockSpecial object with the lower name is ordered before
// the other plain file with a higher name.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial::register_block_special( "/dummy_file1", 0, 0 );
BlockSpecial::register_block_special( "/dummy_file2", 0, 0 );
BlockSpecial bs1( "/dummy_file1" );
BlockSpecial bs2( "/dummy_file2" );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_TRUE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorLessThanEmptyObjectAndPlainFile )
{
// Test empty BlockSpecial object with name "" is before a plain file of any name.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1;
BlockSpecial bs2( "/" );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_TRUE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorLessThanSameBlockDevices )
{
std::string bname = get_block_name( 0 );
// Test one name block device BlockSpecial object is not ordered before another
// from the same name.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1( bname );
BlockSpecial bs2( bname );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorLessThanEmptyObjectAndBlockDevice )
{
std::string bname = get_block_name( 0 );
// Test empty BlockSpecial object with name "" is before any block device.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1;
BlockSpecial bs2( bname );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_TRUE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorLessThanPlainFileAndBlockDevice )
{
std::string bname = get_block_name( 0 );
// Test one plain file BlockSpecial object is ordered before any block device.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial bs1( "/" );
BlockSpecial bs2( bname );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_TRUE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorLessThanTwoDifferentBlockDevicesMajorNumbers )
{
// Test one block device BlockSpecial object is ordered before another based on
// major numbers.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial::register_block_special( "/dummy_block2", 1, 1 );
BlockSpecial::register_block_special( "/dummy_block1", 2, 0 );
BlockSpecial bs1( "/dummy_block2" );
BlockSpecial bs2( "/dummy_block1" );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_TRUE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
TEST( BlockSpecialTest, OperatorLessThanTwoDifferentBlockDevicesMinorNumbers )
{
// Test one block device BlockSpecial object is ordered before another based on
// minor numbers.
BlockSpecial::clear_cache();
BlockSpecial::register_block_special( "/dummy_block2", 2, 0 );
BlockSpecial::register_block_special( "/dummy_block1", 2, 1 );
BlockSpecial bs1( "/dummy_block2" );
BlockSpecial bs2( "/dummy_block1" );
Improve diagnostics of failed BlockSpecial operator tests (#781978) Deliberately breaking one of the operator<() tests produces less than ideal diagnostics because it doesn't print the BlockSpecial objects being compared. $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:362: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (1 ms) ... This could be solved by using the Google Test Binary Comparison assertions, however in the tests for false from (bs1 == bs2) and (bs1 < bs2) comparisons then operators != and >= would have to be implemented and the tests changed from: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ); to: EXPECT_GE( bs1, bs2 ); This makes the meaning of the test less than clear. The primary purpose of the test is to check operator<(), but it is expecting the first BlockSpecial object to be GE (greater than or equal to) than the second, which is calling operator>=() which in turn is testing operator<(). For tests of the operators themselves using Google Test Binary Comparison assertions obscures what is being tested too much. Instead provide a custom failure message which prints the BlockSpecial objects failing the comparison, leaving the test still directly calling the operator being tested, like this: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << " Where: bs1 = " << bs1 << "\n" << " And: bs2 = " << bs2; And with a suitable macro this is simplified to: EXPECT_FALSE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 ); Now the above deliberately broken test produces this output: $ ./test_BlockSpecial ... [ RUN ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects test_BlockSpecial.cc:369: Failure Value of: bs1 < bs2 Actual: true Expected: false Where: bs1 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} And: bs2 = BlockSpecial{"",0,0} [ FAILED ] BlockSpecialTest.OperatorLessThanTwoEmptyObjects (0 ms) ... Bug 781978 - Add Google Test C++ test framework
2017-05-10 15:42:54 -06:00
EXPECT_TRUE( bs1 < bs2 ) << ON_FAILURE_WHERE( bs1, bs2 );
}
} // namespace GParted