IMHO we would be better off with exception-based asserts, checks, and expects.
Bernd
On Jul 28, 2015, at 7:53 AM, Paul Brett pbr...@twitter.com.INVALID wrote:
Michael
I think Ben's suggestion of using Try is just what we want for common
functions.
In regards to ASSERTs, they can cause
Because?
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Bernd Mathiske be...@mesosphere.io
wrote:
IMHO we would be better off with exception-based asserts, checks, and
expects.
Bernd
On Jul 28, 2015, at 7:53 AM, Paul Brett pbr...@twitter.com.INVALID
wrote:
Michael
I think Ben's suggestion of
I've had at least 3 individuals who ran into the issue of *ASSERT_** macro
placement and since the generated error message is less than useless, I
would like to share with you what the issue is.
The source of the issue is that *ASSERT_** macros from *gtest* can only be
placed in functions that
Mike
I would suggest that we want to avoid both ASSERT and CHECK macros in tests.
With ASSERT, I completely agree with you about the perils of using ASSERT
that you list above, but additionally we have cases where ASSERT exits a
test fixture skipping later tests that might or might not have
Michael, note that we've avoided having ASSERT_ or EXPECT_ inside test
helper methods because they print out the line number of the helper method,
rather than the line number where the helper method was called from the
test. This is why we've been pretty careful when adding helpers and have
tried
Paul,
With ASSERT, I completely agree with you about the perils of using ASSERT
that you list above, but additionally we have cases where ASSERT exits a
test fixture skipping later tests that might or might not have failed.
We should only be using *ASSERT_** in cases where it doesn't make
