On 23 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
550 Jean St
Oakland CA 94610
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
