3rd-party/catch2
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/catchorg/Catch2.git synced 2024-11-25 06:46:10 +01:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Rewrite explanation of problems with && and || in assertions

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Martin Hořeňovský 2022-10-17 12:35:54 +02:00
parent d8619f076b
commit a07ac3f935
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: DE48307B8B0D381A
1 changed files with 26 additions and 8 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

32
docs/assertions.md
View File

@ -35,20 +35,38 @@ REQUIRE( i == 42 );
* **CHECK_FALSE(** _expression_ **)**
Evaluates the expression and records the _logical NOT_ of the result. If an exception is thrown it is caught, reported, and counted as a failure.
(these forms exist as a workaround for the fact that ! prefixed expressions cannot be decomposed).
(these forms exist as a workaround for the fact that `!` prefixed expressions cannot be decomposed).
Example:
```
REQUIRE_FALSE( thisReturnsFalse() );
```
Do note that "overly complex" expressions cannot be decomposed and thus will not compile. This is done partly for practical reasons (to keep the underlying expression template machinery to minimum) and partly for philosophical reasons (assertions should be simple and deterministic).
Note that expressions containing either of the binary logical operators,
`&&` or `||`, cannot be decomposed and will not compile. The reason behind
this is that it is impossible to overload `&&` and `||` in a way that
keeps their short-circuiting semantics, and expression decomposition
relies on overloaded operators to work.
Examples:
* `CHECK(a == 1 && b == 2);`
This expression is too complex because of the `&&` operator. If you want to check that 2 or more properties hold, you can either put the expression into parenthesis, which stops decomposition from working, or you need to decompose the expression into two assertions: `CHECK( a == 1 ); CHECK( b == 2);`
* `CHECK( a == 2 || b == 1 );`
This expression is too complex because of the `||` operator. If you want to check that one of several properties hold, you can put the expression into parenthesis (unlike with `&&`, expression decomposition into several `CHECK`s is not possible).
Simple example of an issue with overloading binary logical operators
is a common pointer idiom, `p && p->foo == 2`. Using the built-in `&&`
operator, `p` is only dereferenced if it is not null. With overloaded
`&&`, `p` is always dereferenced, thus causing a segfault if
`p == nullptr`.
If you want to test expression that contains `&&` or `||`, you have two
options.
1) Enclose it in parentheses. Parentheses force evaluation of the expression
before the expression decomposition can touch it, and thus it cannot
be used.
2) Rewrite the expression. `REQUIRE(a == 1 && b == 2)` can always be split
into `REQUIRE(a == 1); REQUIRE(b == 2);`. Alternatively, if this is a
common pattern in your tests, think about using [Matchers](#matcher-expressions).
instead. There is no simple rewrite rule for `||`, but I generally
believe that if you have `||` in your test expression, you should rethink
your tests.
### Floating point comparisons