[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X v3] module api: box_ibuf_* wrappers
Alexander Turenko
alexander.turenko at tarantool.org
Tue Oct 13 21:21:45 MSK 2020
> create mode 100644 src/box/box_ibuf.c
> create mode 100644 src/box/box_ibuf.h
I would name it just src/box/ibuf.[ch].
> +void
> +box_ibuf_read_range(box_ibuf_t *ibuf, char ***rpos, char ***wpos)
> +{
> + if (!ibuf)
> + return;
I would assert on this.
> + if (rpos)
> + *rpos = &ibuf->rpos;
> + if (wpos)
> + *wpos = &ibuf->wpos;
We use explicit == 0 / == NULL checks across our code.
> index 000000000..235b87560
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/src/box/box_ibuf.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> +#pragma once
> +/*
> <...>
> +
> +#include <stddef.h>
It defines NULL and size_t as well as stdlib.h, but you include stdlib.h
in the .c file, so I would use the same header in both. Not sure which
one should be preferred.
> +
> +#include <trivia/util.h>
> +#include <small/ibuf.h>
How about just define an opaque structure?
| struct ibuf;
But include small/ibuf.h explicitly in the .c file?
> +static int
> +test_box_ibuf(lua_State *L)
> +{
> + (void)L;
There is usage of L at end of the function.
> + struct slab_cache *slabc = cord_slab_cache();
> + assert(slabc != NULL);
> + box_ibuf_t ibuf;
> +
> + ibuf_create(&ibuf, slabc, 16320);
> + assert(ibuf_used(&ibuf) == 0);
> + box_ibuf_reserve(&ibuf, 65536);
> + char **rpos;
> + char **wpos;
> + box_ibuf_read_range(&ibuf, &rpos, &wpos);
> +
> + void *ptr = ibuf_alloc(&ibuf, 10);
> + assert(ptr != NULL);
> +
> + assert(ibuf_used(&ibuf) == 10);
> + assert((*wpos - *rpos) == 10);
Now box_ibuf_read_range() should give the updated wpos.
> +
> + ptr = ibuf_alloc(&ibuf, 10000);
> + assert(ptr);
> + assert(ibuf_used(&ibuf) == 10010);
> + assert((*wpos - *rpos) == 10010);
Same here.
> +
> + ibuf_reset(&ibuf);
> + assert(ibuf_used(&ibuf) == 0);
I would test box_ibuf_write_range() as well.
The test per se is more like how internal ibuf operations are
interoperate with the public API rathen than a unit test of the public
API. However it is okay, it'll also do the work and I would not bother
much now.
More information about the Tarantool-patches
mailing list