I know microseconds aren't a very user-friendly format, but for unit tests
and DCHECKs I'm more interested in whether the assertion is simply true.

Perhaps I'm lazy but I'd prefer:
EXPECT_EQ(kExpected, foo);
error: Value of: foo
  Actual: 21000000
Expected: kExpected
Which is: 22000000

...over:
EXPECT_TRUE(kExpected == foo) << "Some message about " <<
kExpected.InSecondsF() << " and " << foo.InSecondsF();
error: Value of: kExpected == foo
  Actual: false
Expected: true
Some message about 21.0 and 22.0

Guaranteed I won't write that message every time and then I end up with a
simple true/false dump instead of the erroneous values.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Matt Perry <[email protected]> wrote:

> Andrew wants to be able to do:
>   DCHECK_EQ(expected_time_delta, time_delta);
> This can't be done without operator<< support.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Jim Roskind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> +1 for Peter's suggestion.
>> TimeDelta has an internal accuracy of microseconds.  What
>> resolution/scaling do you want to print in a check?  Sometimes it is
>> minutes, sometimes seconds, sometimes milliseconds, I doubt that we want
>> microseconds :-/.
>>
>> Explicit conversion as suggested doesn't seem that painful IMO.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Peter Kasting <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Andrew Scherkus 
>>> <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any opposition to globally declaring an operator<< ostream overload for
>>>> TimeDelta in base/time.h?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This will pull the stream headers into all files that use time.h.  Is
>>> that going to bloat any code or cost compile time?
>>>
>>> Is there another easy solution like doing DCHECK() << "TimeDelta was: "
>>> << myTimeDelta.asInt64OrWhatever()?
>>>
>>> PK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] 
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: 
    http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to