From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B5E145C305 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:33:21 +0300 (MSK) References: <86d41c348ae271f5a8a8dec6fdd4ccc045a0408d.1607006062.git.kyukhin@tarantool.org> From: Aleksandr Lyapunov Message-ID: <7bae6a08-1931-3616-4429-4685ea18737a@tarantool.org> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:33:20 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <86d41c348ae271f5a8a8dec6fdd4ccc045a0408d.1607006062.git.kyukhin@tarantool.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] test: fix local array access in heap_iterator unit test List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kirill Yukhin , avtikhon@tarantool.org Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Hello! Thanks for the patch, see my comment below: On 03.12.2020 17:38, Kirill Yukhin wrote: > Index variable run from 1 to 5 and was used to index > array of size 4. Use iv - 1 instead. > > Discovered by Coverity. > --- > > Issue: N/A > Branch: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/kyukhin/fix-heap_iterator > CI: https://gitlab.com/tarantool/tarantool/-/pipelines/224811793 > > test/unit/heap_iterator.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/test/unit/heap_iterator.c b/test/unit/heap_iterator.c > index 4fde39d..3fcefff 100644 > --- a/test/unit/heap_iterator.c > +++ b/test/unit/heap_iterator.c > @@ -111,15 +111,15 @@ test_iterator_small() > if (val < 1 || val > 5) Accessing below by [val - 1] is ok, but the main problem is that this check is wrong. If the heap works correctly - 'val' must be in range [1..4]. I think we should fix to "val < 1 || val > 4". After that both variants of accessing array by [val] and [val - 1] would be ok. > fail("from iterator returned incorrect value", > "val < 1 || val > 5"); > - if (used_key[val]) > + if (used_key[val - 1]) > fail("from iterator some value returned twice", > "used[val]"); > - used_key[val] = 1; > + used_key[val - 1] = 1; > } > > bool f = true; > for (uint32_t i = 1; i < 5; ++i) > - f = used_key[i] && f; > + f = used_key[i - 1] && f; > if (!f) > fail("some node was skipped", "!f"); >