> On May 1, 2017, at 4:28 PM, Benjamin Mahler <bmah...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Do you have some examples?
I think that this:
EXPECT_EQ(Bytes(512u), BasicBlocks(Bytes(128)).bytes())
<< "a partial block should round up";
is a strict superset of this:
// A partial block should round up.
EXPECT_EQ(Bytes(512u), BasicBlocks(Bytes(128)).bytes())
The former is preferable since the person triaging test failures gets the
immediate context of what the expectation is doing. This is valuable even if
you might also find you need to check the source.
>
> Thinking through my own experience debugging tests, I tend to only get
> value out of EXPECT messages when they are providing information that I
> can't get access to from the line number / actual vs expected printing.
> (e.g. the value of a variable). If the EXPECT message is simply explaining
> what the test is doing, then I tend to ignore it and read the test instead,
> so it would be helpful to discuss some examples to get a better sense. :)
>
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 10:02 AM, James Peach <jor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In a couple of reviews, I've been asked to avoid emitting explanatory
>> messages from the EXPECT() macro. The rationale for this is that tests
>> usually use comments. However, I think that emitting the reason for a
>> failed expectation into the test log is pretty helpful and we should do it
>> more often.
>>
>> What do people think about explicitly allowing (or even encouraging) this?
>> ie. EXPECT(...) << "some explanation goes here"
>>
>> J
