[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] unittests: Use EXPECT_ instead of ASSERT_ in a few tests (PR #129251)
via llvm-branch-commits
llvm-branch-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Feb 28 06:22:20 PST 2025
llvmbot wrote:
<!--LLVM PR SUMMARY COMMENT-->
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-support
Author: Matt Arsenault (arsenm)
<details>
<summary>Changes</summary>
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/129251.diff
1 Files Affected:
- (modified) llvm/unittests/Support/ProgramTest.cpp (+6-6)
``````````diff
diff --git a/llvm/unittests/Support/ProgramTest.cpp b/llvm/unittests/Support/ProgramTest.cpp
index b1b35eacd1f61..47d2e269afe94 100644
--- a/llvm/unittests/Support/ProgramTest.cpp
+++ b/llvm/unittests/Support/ProgramTest.cpp
@@ -422,10 +422,10 @@ TEST(ProgramTest, TestExecuteNegative) {
bool ExecutionFailed;
int RetCode = ExecuteAndWait(Executable, argv, std::nullopt, {}, 0, 0,
&Error, &ExecutionFailed);
- ASSERT_LT(RetCode, 0) << "On error ExecuteAndWait should return 0 or "
+ EXPECT_LT(RetCode, 0) << "On error ExecuteAndWait should return 0 or "
"positive value indicating the result code";
- ASSERT_TRUE(ExecutionFailed);
- ASSERT_FALSE(Error.empty());
+ EXPECT_TRUE(ExecutionFailed);
+ EXPECT_FALSE(Error.empty());
}
{
@@ -433,10 +433,10 @@ TEST(ProgramTest, TestExecuteNegative) {
bool ExecutionFailed;
ProcessInfo PI = ExecuteNoWait(Executable, argv, std::nullopt, {}, 0,
&Error, &ExecutionFailed);
- ASSERT_EQ(PI.Pid, ProcessInfo::InvalidPid)
+ EXPECT_EQ(PI.Pid, ProcessInfo::InvalidPid)
<< "On error ExecuteNoWait should return an invalid ProcessInfo";
- ASSERT_TRUE(ExecutionFailed);
- ASSERT_FALSE(Error.empty());
+ EXPECT_TRUE(ExecutionFailed);
+ EXPECT_FALSE(Error.empty());
}
}
``````````
</details>
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/129251
More information about the llvm-branch-commits
mailing list