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

[Jakub Hrozek]

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(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  > 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