chdir 't';
}
}
-use Test::More tests => 55;
+use Test::More tests => 155;
+use strict;
my @Exported_Funcs;
BEGIN {
is( $hash{locked}, 42, 'unlock_value' );
-TODO: {
-# local $TODO = 'assigning to a hash screws with locked keys';
-
+{
my %hash = ( foo => 42, locked => 23 );
lock_keys(%hash);
- lock_value(%hash, 'locked');
eval { %hash = ( wubble => 42 ) }; # we know this will bomb
- like( $@, qr/^Attempt to clear a restricted hash/ );
-
- eval { unlock_value(%hash, 'locked') }; # but this shouldn't
- is( $@, '', 'unlock_value() after denied assignment' );
-
- is_deeply( \%hash, { foo => 42, locked => 23 },
- 'hash should not be altered by denied assignment' );
+ like( $@, qr/^Attempt to access disallowed key 'wubble'/ );
unlock_keys(%hash);
}
lock_value(%hash, 'RO');
eval { %hash = (KEY => 1) };
- like( $@, qr/^Attempt to clear a restricted hash/ );
+ like( $@, qr/^Attempt to delete readonly key 'RO' from a restricted hash/ );
}
-# TODO: This should be allowed but it might require putting extra
-# code into aassign.
{
my %hash = (KEY => 1, RO => 2);
lock_keys(%hash);
eval { %hash = (KEY => 1, RO => 2) };
- like( $@, qr/^Attempt to clear a restricted hash/ );
+ is( $@, '');
}
is (scalar keys %hash, 0, "and therefore there are no keys");
$hash{second} = 1;
is (scalar keys %hash, 1, "we now have just one key");
+ delete $hash{second};
+ is (scalar keys %hash, 0, "back to zero");
+
+ unlock_keys(%hash); # We have deliberately left a placeholder.
+
+ $hash{void} = undef;
+ $hash{nowt} = undef;
+
+ is (scalar keys %hash, 2, "two keys, values both undef");
+
+ lock_keys(%hash);
+
+ is (scalar keys %hash, 2, "still two keys after locking");
+
+ eval {$hash{second} = -1};
+ like ($@,
+ qr/^Attempt to access disallowed key 'second' in a restricted hash/,
+ 'previously locked place holders should fail');
+
+ is ($hash{void}, undef,
+ "undef values should not be misunderstood as placeholders");
+ is ($hash{nowt}, undef,
+ "undef values should not be misunderstood as placeholders (again)");
+}
+
+{
+ # perl #18651 - tim@consultix-inc.com found a rather nasty data dependant
+ # bug whereby hash iterators could lose hash keys (and values, as the code
+ # is common) for restricted hashes.
+
+ my @keys = qw(small medium large);
+
+ # There should be no difference whether it is restricted or not
+ foreach my $lock (0, 1) {
+ # Try setting all combinations of the 3 keys
+ foreach my $usekeys (0..7) {
+ my @usekeys;
+ for my $bits (0,1,2) {
+ push @usekeys, $keys[$bits] if $usekeys & (1 << $bits);
+ }
+ my %clean = map {$_ => length $_} @usekeys;
+ my %target;
+ lock_keys ( %target, @keys ) if $lock;
+
+ while (my ($k, $v) = each %clean) {
+ $target{$k} = $v;
+ }
+
+ my $message
+ = ($lock ? 'locked' : 'not locked') . ' keys ' . join ',', @usekeys;
+
+ is (scalar keys %target, scalar keys %clean, "scalar keys for $message");
+ is (scalar values %target, scalar values %clean,
+ "scalar values for $message");
+ # Yes. All these sorts are necessary. Even for "identical hashes"
+ # Because the data dependency of the test involves two of the strings
+ # colliding on the same bucket, so the iterator order (output of keys,
+ # values, each) depends on the addition order in the hash. And locking
+ # the keys of the hash involves behind the scenes key additions.
+ is_deeply( [sort keys %target] , [sort keys %clean],
+ "list keys for $message");
+ is_deeply( [sort values %target] , [sort values %clean],
+ "list values for $message");
+
+ is_deeply( [sort %target] , [sort %clean],
+ "hash in list context for $message");
+
+ my (@clean, @target);
+ while (my ($k, $v) = each %clean) {
+ push @clean, $k, $v;
+ }
+ while (my ($k, $v) = each %target) {
+ push @target, $k, $v;
+ }
+
+ is_deeply( [sort @target] , [sort @clean],
+ "iterating with each for $message");
+ }
+ }
}