tmaq
/
tornavis
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 2 Pull Requests 29 Packages Projects 24 Releases Wiki Activity

Fix failing `AssetLibraryService` test by removing test code 

Remove the code I had hoped to fix in rB3edae09e, the fix was unreliable.

No functional changes to Blender.
This commit is contained in:
Sybren A. Stüvel 2021-10-18 17:29:24 +02:00
parent 3cbe921899
commit 46fe43feca
1 changed files with 6 additions and 27 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

33
source/blender/blenkernel/intern/asset_library_service_test.cc
View File

@ -59,22 +59,13 @@ TEST_F(AssetLibraryServiceTest, get_destroy)
EXPECT_EQ(service, AssetLibraryService::get())
<< "Calling twice without destroying in between should return the same instance.";
AssetLibraryService::destroy();
/* On GCC in release mode (and maybe also debug mode without ASAN enabled), allocating an
* #AssetLibraryService will reuse the space that should have just been freed in the above
* destroy() call. To see that the get() call below really allocates a new object, allocate a
* dummy block of memory first. */
AssetLibraryService *dummy_pointer = new AssetLibraryService();
EXPECT_NE(service, AssetLibraryService::get())
<< "Calling twice with destroying in between should return a new instance.";
/* This should not crash. */
AssetLibraryService::destroy();
AssetLibraryService::destroy();
delete dummy_pointer;
/* Note: there used to be a test for the opposite here, that after a call to
* AssetLibraryService::destroy() the above calls should return freshly allocated objects. This
* cannot be reliably tested by just pointer comparison, though. */
}
TEST_F(AssetLibraryServiceTest, library_pointers)
@ -88,21 +79,9 @@ TEST_F(AssetLibraryServiceTest, library_pointers)
EXPECT_EQ(curfile_lib, service->get_asset_library_current_file())
<< "Calling twice without destroying in between should return the same instance.";
AssetLibraryService::destroy();
/* On GCC in release mode (and maybe also debug mode without ASAN enabled), allocating an
* #AssetLibraryService will reuse the space that should have just been freed in the above
* destroy() call. To see that the get() call below really allocates a new object, allocate a
* dummy block of memory first. */
AssetLibrary *dummy_pointer = new AssetLibrary();
service = AssetLibraryService::get();
EXPECT_NE(lib, service->get_asset_library_on_disk(asset_library_root_))
<< "Calling twice with destroying in between should return a new instance.";
EXPECT_NE(curfile_lib, service->get_asset_library_current_file())
<< "Calling twice with destroying in between should return a new instance.";
delete dummy_pointer;
/* Note: there used to be a test for the opposite here, that after a call to
* AssetLibraryService::destroy() the above calls should return freshly allocated objects. This
* cannot be reliably tested by just pointer comparison, though. */
}
TEST_F(AssetLibraryServiceTest, catalogs_loaded)