Code review comment for lp:~midauth-pisa-devs/hipl/midauth-firewall

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:43:43PM +0200, Christof Mroz wrote:
> On 25.10.2011 23:02, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 02:35:31PM +0000, René Hummen wrote:
> >>On 25.10.2011, at 15:24, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 02:28:06PM +0200, René Hummen wrote:
> >>>>On 20.10.2011, at 14:15, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >>>>>On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 01:17:30PM +0000, René Hummen wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>--- Makefile.am 2011-10-17 18:14:10 +0000
> >>>>>>+++ Makefile.am 2011-10-19 13:13:48 +0000
> >>>>>>@@ -253,7 +256,7 @@
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>-test_check_firewall_LDFLAGS = -ldl
> >>>>>>+test_check_firewall_LDFLAGS = -ldl -z muldefs
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We have solved this differently elsewhere by #including the .c file to
> >>>>>unit-test static functions.
> >>>>
> >>>>This has been discussed previously on the list:
> >>>> http://www.freelists.org/post/hipl-dev/Mock-functions-for-hipl-unit-tests
> >>>
> >>>But we currently don't favor that solution. If that needs changing,
> >>>it's a topic for a separate merge request and would need to be changed
> >>>in all places.
> >>
> >>The change was necessary in order to comply with our unit-test for new
> >>code policy as unit-tests would otherwise not link correctly. The only
> >>other option I see right now is to merge the code without unit-tests.
> >
> >No, the change is not necessary. As I said before, we have solved
> >this differently elsewhere by #including the .c file to unit-test
> >static functions.
>
> Including the .c file allows you to access static identifiers in
> unit tests, but the libipq problem (see referenced thread) is a
> different one.
> Apparently, Hendrik already tried to mimic the other (working) tests
> already without success.

I'd like to know what is failing exactly and how before making
a judgement here.

Diego