sorry one more question: assert statements in tests
misha680 at gmail.com
Sat Jul 10 12:36:24 CDT 2010
Thank you for the explanation. maxUlps is in fact a constant.
Although the asserts in my previous question re incremental patches were
also only applicable due to programmer error. However, I think in that case
a skip is much more appropriate if nothing else because it is immediately
clear the programmer made an error.
On Jul 10, 2010 12:11 PM, "Reece Dunn" <msclrhd at googlemail.com> wrote:
On 10 July 2010 17:40, Misha Koshelev <misha680 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 07:40 +010...
> Ok that makes sense.
> What about in the case of something like this:
> Is assert ok here or do I need to change it to some kind of skip
> statement as well?
The assert should be ok here provided that maxUlps does not come from
some function -- that is, it is constant and will trigger on all
Assert statements are not forbidden in tests (there are some already
in various tests), it's just that if they trigger as a result of the
system as part of calls under test, they make it difficult to track
down what is failing and why by looking at the test results. If the
asserts are triggered on any system because they are the result of
programmer error (e.g. typo) should be fine.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wine-devel