gunit: Update test 009 to better test dirty flag

When the dirty flag is set, cgroup_set_values_recursive()
was erroneously failing the recursive setting of values.
There were two problems in the unit test that caused this to
be missed:
    1. The dirty flag wasn't being set
    2. If fgets() returned a NULL ptr, the contents of the
       settings file weren't being checked

Reported-by: Bharani viswas <bharani.viswas@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Hromatka <tom.hromatka@oracle.com>

diff --git a/gunit/009-cgroup_set_values_recursive.cpp b/gunit/009-cgroup_set_values_recursive.cpp
index 07ce3d5d988340f5ca367c89cc466a17d95925f0..7f4aaa0d7210f15a8b8dc7dc476a5510b01aec4a 100644 (file)
--- a/gunit/009-cgroup_set_values_recursive.cpp
+++ b/gunit/009-cgroup_set_values_recursive.cpp
@@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ TEST_F(SetValuesRecursiveTest, SuccessfulSetValues)
        char tmp_path[FILENAME_MAX], buf[4092];
        struct cgroup_controller ctrlr = {0};
        int ret, i;
+       char *val;
        FILE *f;
 
        ret = snprintf(ctrlr.name, FILENAME_MAX - 1, "cpu");
@@ -108,7 +109,10 @@ TEST_F(SetValuesRecursiveTest, SuccessfulSetValues)
                strncpy(ctrlr.values[i]->name, NAMES[i], FILENAME_MAX);
                strncpy(ctrlr.values[i]->value, VALUES[i],
                        CG_CONTROL_VALUE_MAX);
-               ctrlr.values[i]->dirty = false;
+               if (i == 0)
+                       ctrlr.values[i]->dirty = true;
+               else
+                       ctrlr.values[i]->dirty = false;
                ctrlr.index++;
        }
 
@@ -124,8 +128,9 @@ TEST_F(SetValuesRecursiveTest, SuccessfulSetValues)
                f = fopen(tmp_path, "r");
                ASSERT_NE(f, nullptr);
 
-               while (fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), f))
-                       ASSERT_STREQ(buf, VALUES[i]);
+               val = fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), f);
+               ASSERT_NE(val, nullptr);
+               ASSERT_STREQ(buf, VALUES[i]);
                fclose(f);
        }
 }