apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@apache.org
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/test testpools.c
Date Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:28:57 GMT
On 23 Oct 2002 trawick@apache.org wrote:

> trawick     2002/10/23 07:19:57
> 
>   Modified:    test     testpools.c
>   Log:
>   change to a more appropriate CuAssert* call
>   
>   Revision  Changes    Path
>   1.5       +1 -1      apr/test/testpools.c
>   
>   Index: testpools.c
>   ===================================================================
>   RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/test/testpools.c,v
>   retrieving revision 1.4
>   retrieving revision 1.5
>   diff -u -r1.4 -r1.5
>   --- testpools.c	22 Oct 2002 23:22:06 -0000	1.4
>   +++ testpools.c	23 Oct 2002 14:19:57 -0000	1.5
>   @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@
>    
>        for (i=0;i<ALLOC_BYTES;i++) {
>            char *ptr = alloc + i;
>   -        CuAssertPtrEquals(tc, NULL, *ptr);
>   +        CuAssertTrue(tc, *ptr == '\0');

I actually considered doing this, but I don't believe that it is a good
idea.  The problem is the amount of information you get if things
fail.  With this change you get:

50 tests run:  49 passed, 1 failed, 0 not implemented.
Failed tests:
1) calloc_bytes: assert failed

Without it, you get:

50 tests run:  49 passed, 1 failed, 0 not implemented.
Failed tests:
1) calloc_bytes: expected pointer <(nil)> but was <0x61>

I would mucch rather have the added information.

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
550 Jean St
Oakland CA 94610
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message