[SSSD] [PATCH] simple_access-tests: Simplify assertion

Jakub Hrozek jhrozek at redhat.com
Tue Apr 14 11:28:16 UTC 2015


On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:59:49PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 08:52:21AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> > ehlo,
> > 
> > simple patch is attached.
> > 
> > LS
> 
> > From de73f8b78968ee651874b7561dd0548359b9e5c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Lukas Slebodnik <lslebodn at redhat.com>
> > Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:10:15 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] simple_access-tests: Simplify assertion
> > 
> > The second argument of function check_access_list should not be an empty list.
> > ---
> >  src/tests/simple_access-tests.c | 4 +---
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/src/tests/simple_access-tests.c b/src/tests/simple_access-tests.c
> > index 5c74eb85f80cbeee8cff456c08d9012babb9a9db..3e8b310eeaf31a85fa7c51cf9fe27f7074c6bfaa 100644
> > --- a/src/tests/simple_access-tests.c
> > +++ b/src/tests/simple_access-tests.c
> > @@ -536,9 +536,7 @@ static void check_access_list(char **list, const char **values)
> >  {
> >      int i;
> >  
> > -    if (list == NULL) {
> > -        fail_if(values != NULL, "List is empty, but it shouldn't be");
> > -    }
> 
> For a moment I was wondering if the original list of the check was to
> allow both lists to be empty, but it's unclear and we're not using that
> feature anyway, so I'm fine with simplifying the code.
> 
> ACK
> 
> CI: http://sssd-ci.idm.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com:8080/job/ci/1292/

* master: cf0be339522a5ddf8073c11c6da61784cf038bc4



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list