Prefer BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL to BOOST_CHECK

The former is more assertive than the latter and provides better
diagnostics.  Incidentally, switching to *_EQUAL() also fixes an
assignment that was (probably) intended to be an equality test:

   BOOST_CHECK(count = num)

in both test cases.
This commit is contained in:
Bård Skaflestad 2013-05-24 21:59:09 +02:00
parent eee8c27346
commit 2b57104097

View File

@ -35,16 +35,16 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(OneArgConstr)
{
const int num = 4;
const Span s(num);
BOOST_CHECK(s.size() == num);
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(s.size(), num);
for (int i = 0; i < num; ++i) {
BOOST_CHECK(s[i] == i);
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(s[i], i);
}
int count = 0;
for (Span::const_iterator it = s.begin(); it != s.end(); ++it) {
BOOST_CHECK(*it == count);
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(*it, count);
++count;
}
BOOST_CHECK(count = num);
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(count, num);
}
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(ThreeArgConstr)
@ -55,15 +55,14 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(ThreeArgConstr)
const int seq[num] = { start, start + 1*stride, start + 2*stride };
const Span s(num, stride, start);
BOOST_CHECK(s.size() == num);
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(s.size(), num);
for (int i = 0; i < num; ++i) {
BOOST_CHECK(s[i] == seq[i]);
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(s[i], seq[i]);
}
int count = 0;
for (Span::const_iterator it = s.begin(); it != s.end(); ++it) {
BOOST_CHECK(*it == seq[count]);
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(*it, seq[count]);
++count;
}
BOOST_CHECK(count = num);
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(count, num);
}