Skip to content

[Tests] Add regression tests for pull request #7 #32

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Conversation

modocache
Copy link
Contributor

#7 fixed a problem with XCTAssertEqualsWithAccuracy. This test ensures that fix does not regress.

@mike-ferris
Copy link

Can you explain the %t change a bit? Does this wind up putting output in the sources? Was this intended as part of this PR?

@modocache
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mike-ferris-apple Yup! Sorry for not being clear--this should be reviewed after #31. I explain the %t change there.

@mike-ferris
Copy link

This pull request seems to include the commit that was PR #31. Can you reformulate this to just include the new test. I merged #31 a few minutes ago.

@modocache modocache force-pushed the more-list-tests-xctassertequalswithaccuracy branch from 64612e3 to 010cd0c Compare January 11, 2016 18:07
@modocache
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mike-ferris-apple Thanks for merging #31. I rebased to include #31, plus @briancroom's changes from #33. This is my output now:

Test Case 'NegativeAccuracyTestCase.test_equalWithAccuracy_passes' started.
Test Case 'NegativeAccuracyTestCase.test_equalWithAccuracy_fails' started.
/Users/bgesiak/GitHub/apple/swift-corelibs-xctest/Tests/Functional/NegativeAccuracyTestCase/main.swift:39: error: NegativeAccuracyTestCase.test_equalWithAccuracy_fails : XCTAssertEqualWithAccuracy failed: ("0.0") is not equal to ("0.2") +/- ("-0.1") -
Test Case 'NegativeAccuracyTestCase.test_equalWithAccuracy_fails' failed (0.0 seconds).
Test Case 'NegativeAccuracyTestCase.test_notEqualWithAccuracy_passes' started.
Test Case 'NegativeAccuracyTestCase.test_notEqualWithAccuracy_fails' started.
/Users/bgesiak/GitHub/apple/swift-corelibs-xctest/Tests/Functional/NegativeAccuracyTestCase/main.swift:47: error: NegativeAccuracyTestCase.test_notEqualWithAccuracy_fails : XCTAssertNotEqualWithAccuracy failed: ("1.0") is equal to ("2.0") +/- ("-1.0") -
Test Case 'NegativeAccuracyTestCase.test_notEqualWithAccuracy_fails' failed (0.0 seconds).
Executed 4 tests, with 2 failures (0 unexpected) in 0.0 (0.001) seconds
Total executed 2 tests, with 2 failures (0 unexpected) in 0.0 (0.001) seconds

It seems like the test output has become a little jumbled. I'd like to investigate a bit more to see why this is the case -- this probably shouldn't be merged in the meantime.

@modocache
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think the confused output from my test above is a regression, which I hope to fix in #35. Please don't merge this pull request until after #35. 🙇

@mike-ferris
Copy link

I merged #35, but now there's a conflict here.

swiftlang#33 introduced
another regression that was not fixed in 4944003: the total number of test
runs was not being reported correctly--only the total number of
failures.

Fix the misreporting, as well as the incorrect verification in the
`FailingTestSuite` functional test.
swiftlang#7 fixed a
problem with XCTAssertEqualsWithAccuracy. This test ensures
that fix does not regress.
@modocache modocache force-pushed the more-list-tests-xctassertequalswithaccuracy branch from 010cd0c to 0143cfa Compare January 13, 2016 17:13
@modocache
Copy link
Contributor Author

Oops, sorry! I noticed another error. I submitted a pull request for it: #38. This pull request should be merged after that one.

mike-ferris pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 13, 2016
…withaccuracy

[Tests] Add regression tests for pull request #7
@mike-ferris mike-ferris merged commit ef8ff15 into swiftlang:master Jan 13, 2016
@modocache modocache deleted the more-list-tests-xctassertequalswithaccuracy branch January 14, 2016 04:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants