[PATCH 1/3] tests: add expect_protocol_error function

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 02:37:40 +0000
"Bryce W. Harrington" <b.harrington at samsung.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 04:58:05PM +0200, Marek Chalupa wrote:
> > This function checks if a particular protocol error came in wire.
> > It's usefull in the cases where we hitherto used FAIL_TEST.
> > The problem with FAIL_TEST is that *any* assert will pass the test,
> > but we want only some asserts to pass the test (i. e. we don't
> > want the test to pass when it, for example, can't connect to display).
> > FAIL_TESTs are good only for sanity testing.
> > 
> > The expect_protocol_error allows us to turn all FAIL_TESTs to TESTs
> > as will be introduced in following patches.
> > ---
> >  tests/weston-test-client-helper.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  tests/weston-test-client-helper.h |  4 ++++
> >  2 files changed, 53 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/weston-test-client-helper.c b/tests/weston-test-client-helper.c
> > index 186b395..fb2e477 100644
> > --- a/tests/weston-test-client-helper.c
> > +++ b/tests/weston-test-client-helper.c
> > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> >  #include <stdio.h>
> >  #include <string.h>
> >  #include <unistd.h>
> > +#include <errno.h>
> >  #include <sys/mman.h>
> >  
> >  #include "../shared/os-compatibility.h"
> > @@ -512,6 +513,54 @@ skip(const char *fmt, ...)
> >  	exit(77);
> >  }
> >  
> > +void
> > +expect_protocol_error(struct client *client,
> > +		      const struct wl_interface *intf,
> > +		      uint32_t code)
> > +{
> > +	int err;
> > +	uint32_t errcode, failed = 0;
> > +	const struct wl_interface *interface;
> > +	unsigned int id;
> > +
> > +	/* if the error has not came yet, make it happen */
> 
> "has not come yet"
> 
> > +	wl_display_roundtrip(client->wl_display);
> > +
> > +	err = wl_display_get_error(client->wl_display);
> > +
> > +	assert(err && "Expected protocol error but nothing came");
> > +	assert(err == EPROTO && "Expected protocol error but got local error");
> > +
> > +
> > +	errcode = wl_display_get_protocol_error(client->wl_display,
> > +						&interface, &id);
> > +
> > +	/* check error */
> > +	if (errcode != code) {
> > +		fprintf(stderr, "Should get error code %d but got %d\n",
> > +			code, errcode);
> > +		failed = 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* this should be definitely set */
> > +	assert(interface);
> > +
> > +	if (strcmp(intf->name, interface->name) != 0) {
> > +		fprintf(stderr, "Should get interface '%s' but got '%s'\n",
> > +			intf->name, interface->name);
> > +		failed = 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (failed) {
> > +		fprintf(stderr, "Expected other protocol error\n");
> > +		abort();
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* all OK */
> > +	fprintf(stderr, "Got expected protocol error on '%s' (object id: %d) "
> > +			"with code %d\n", interface->name, id, errcode);
> > +}
> > +
> 
> I think if you move the assert higher, you can condense the logic a
> bit.  Maybe it's clearer:
> 
> 	/* this should be definitely set */
> 	assert(interface);
> 
> 	if (errcode != code) {
> 		fprintf(stderr, "Should get error code %d but got %d\n",
> 			code, errcode);
> 	} else if (strcmp(intf->name, interface->name) != 0) {
> 		fprintf(stderr, "Should get interface '%s' but got '%s'\n",
> 			intf->name, interface->name);
> 	} else {
> 		fprintf(stderr, "Got expected protocol error on '%s' (object id: %d) "
> 			"with code %d\n", interface->name, id, errcode);
> 		return;
> 	}
> 
> 	fprintf(stderr, "Expected a different protocol error\n");
> 	abort();
> }
> 
> I wonder if the final error message is a bit redundant.
> 
> >  static void
> >  log_handler(const char *fmt, va_list args)
> >  {
> > diff --git a/tests/weston-test-client-helper.h b/tests/weston-test-client-helper.h
> > index 4bfc3fa..f154661 100644
> > --- a/tests/weston-test-client-helper.h
> > +++ b/tests/weston-test-client-helper.h
> > @@ -129,4 +129,8 @@ get_n_egl_buffers(struct client *client);
> >  void
> >  skip(const char *fmt, ...);
> >  
> > +void
> > +expect_protocol_error(struct client *client,
> > +		      const struct wl_interface *intf, uint32_t code);
> > +
> >  #endif
> 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Bryce Harrington <b.harrington at samsung.com>

Hi Bryce,

is this a reviewed-by also for the original patch without
suggested changes? And only for patch 1?


Thanks,
pq