[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #12955 [Tor]: New tests for routerset.c
#12955: New tests for routerset.c
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
Reporter: _x3j11 | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: normal | Milestone: Tor: 0.2.6.x-final
Component: Tor | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords: tor-client
Actual Points: | Parent ID:
Points: |
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
Changes (by nickm):
* keywords: => tor-client
* type: defect => enhancement
Comment:
Wow, thorough. Awesome.
Two quick questions, though.
First, why add the -g to the cflags in src/test/include.am ? It should be
getting added to CFLAGS by configure.ac, right?
Second, why the 'return NULL' mocking for strmap_new() and smartlist_new()
and digestmap_new() ? They let us make sure that the components of the
routerset really get initialized, but I think this approach creates a few
problems:
* It possibly over-fits the specific implementation for routerset:
there's nothing written stone saying that a routerset must allocate N
smartlists, M digestmaps, etc.
* It makes the functions behave differently from their real versions.
(The real strmap_new() can never return NULL, for example.)
I wouldn't mind these issues so much if the tests were clearly marked to
say which ones were glass-box tests that are expected to break if the
implementation of routerset changes, and which are black-box tests that
represent real requirements on the behavior of routerset that ought to be
met by any implementation of routerset.
What do you think?
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/12955#comment:2>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs