On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 10:55:06PM +0800, shejialuo wrote:
> diff --git a/t/unit-tests/u-string-list.c b/t/unit-tests/u-string-list.c
> index 0c148684ea..44ec8de3d0 100644
> --- a/t/unit-tests/u-string-list.c
> +++ b/t/unit-tests/u-string-list.c
> @@ -84,3 +84,42 @@ void test_string_list__split(void)
>
> t_string_list_clear(&expected_strings, 0);
> }
> +
> +static void t_string_list_split_in_place(const char *data, const char *delim, int maxsplit,
> + struct string_list *expected_strings)
> +{
> + struct string_list list = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;
> +
Nit: this empty newline should be removed.
> + char *string = xstrdup(data);
> +
> + int len = string_list_split_in_place(&list, string, delim, maxsplit);
> + cl_assert_equal_i(len, expected_strings->nr);
> + t_check_string_list(&list, expected_strings);
> +
> + free(string);
> + t_string_list_clear(&list, 0);
> +}
> +
> +void test_string_list__split_in_place(void)
> +{
> + struct string_list expected_strings = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
> +
> + t_create_string_list_dup(&expected_strings, 0, "foo", "", "", "bar",
> + "", "", "baz", "", "", "", NULL);
> + t_string_list_split_in_place("foo:;:bar:;:baz:;:", ":;", -1, &expected_strings);
Same question here, can we handle expected strings via varargs to avoid
code duplication? Also for subsequent patches.
Patrick
