[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectASSERT_GE definition is backwards
ASSERT_GE() is defined as:

* ASSERT_GE(expected, seen)
* @expected: expected value
* @seen: measured value
* ASSERT_GE(expected, measured): expected >= measured
#define ASSERT_GE(expected, seen) \
__EXPECT(expected, #expected, seen, #seen, >=, 1)

but that means that logically, if you want to write "assert that the
measured PID X is >= the expected value 0", you actually have to use
ASSERT_LE(0, X). That's really awkward. Normally you'd be talking
about how the seen value compares to the expected one, not the other
way around.

At the moment I see tests that are instead written like ASSERT_GE(X,
0), but then that means that the expected and seen values are the
wrong way around.

It might be good if someone could refactor the definitions of
ASSERT_GE and such to swap around which number is the expected and
which is the seen one.

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-02 17:06    [W:0.030 / U:3.680 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site