Re: Review of second patch for Bug#25615,

[joce]

Hi Chad,

>> --- mysql-5.2-ref/unittest/mysys/Makefile.am	2007-03-02
>> 19:24:43.000000000 +0100
>> +++ mysql-5.2/unittest/mysys/Makefile.am	2007-03-23
>> 01:03:41.000000000 +0100
>> @@ -17,9 +17,11 @@
>>  AM_CPPFLAGS     += -I$(top_srcdir)/include -I$(top_srcdir)/
>> unittest/mytap
>>
>>  LDADD 		= $(top_builddir)/unittest/mytap/libmytap.a \
>> +                  $(top_builddir)/mysys/libmysys.a \
>> +                  $(top_builddir)/strings/libmystrings.a \
>> +                  $(top_builddir)/dbug/libdbug.a \
>>  		  $(top_builddir)/mysys/libmysys.a \
>> -		  $(top_builddir)/dbug/libdbug.a \
>> -		  $(top_builddir)/strings/libmystrings.a
>> +                  $(top_builddir)/strings/libmystrings.a
>>
>>  noinst_PROGRAMS  = bitmap-t base64-t my_atomic-t
>
> Yes!  You updated files in the unittest directory, but I don't see a
> test of the my_snprintf() .  Perhaps you added it, but the 'diff'
> program omitted it?
>
> In particular, I'm interested in the results of:
>
> char foo[20];
> my_snprintf(foo, 10, ">%0f<", 0.987654321098765432);
> my_snprintf(foo, 10, ">%.0f<", 0.987654321098765432);
> my_snprintf(foo, 10, ">%09.4f<", 0.987654321098765432);
> my_snprintf(foo, 10, ">%.1f<", 0.987654321098765432);
> my_snprintf(foo, 3, ">%.1f<", 0.987654321098765432);
> my_snprintf(foo, 4, ">%.1f<", 0.987654321098765432);
> my_snprintf(foo, 10, ">%.3f<", 0.987654321098765432);
> my_snprintf(foo, 10, ">%.4f<", 0.987654321098765432);
> my_snprintf(foo, 10, ">%+.4f<", 0.987654321098765432);
> my_snprintf(foo, 10, ">%+.5f<", 0.987654321098765432);
> my_snprintf(foo, 10, ">%.6f<", 0.987654321098765432);
> my_snprintf(foo, 10, ">%.7f<", 0.987654321098765432);
> my_snprintf(foo, 10, ">%80f<", 0.987654321098765432);
>
>
> Of course the test should fail if any results are not what we should
> expect.
>
> Our test suite runs the programs in the "unittest" directory, but
> since I spend most of my time in the 5.0 tree, I don't offhand know
> how.  You may need to add a reference to it somewhere.  I suggest
> adding a bogus test and making sure that the normal suite fails and
> then adding the real tests and making sure that it passes.
>
>

Actually I was wondering how to test it :)
I had to update unittest to allow it to compile in debug mode.
I'll try to update it and add your suggested tests.

Thanks,
  Jocelyn