It will work on any iterable container of doubles: lists, vectors, Blitz::TinyVectors, etc.
It will also check that the lengths are the same and verify that one is not shorter than the other, and can do it without assertions that cause the unit test to prematurely abort.
#define EXPECT_ITERABLE_DOUBLE_EQ( TYPE, ref, target) \
{ \
const TYPE& _ref(ref); \
const TYPE& _target(target); \
TYPE::const_iterator tarIter = _target.begin(); \
TYPE::const_iterator refIter = _ref.begin(); \
unsigned int i = 0; \
while(refIter != _ref.end()) { \
if ( tarIter == _target.end() ) { \
ADD_FAILURE() << #target \
" has a smaller length than " #ref ; \
break; \
} \
EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ(* refIter, * tarIter) \
<< "Vectors " #ref " (refIter) " \
"and " #target " (tarIter) " \
"differ at index " << i; \
++refIter; ++tarIter; ++i; \
} \
EXPECT_TRUE( tarIter == _target.end() ) \
<< #ref " has a smaller length than " \
#target ; \
}
Call it with something like:
EXPECT_ITERABLE_DOUBLE_EQ(std::vector, expectedTemp, radTemperature);
and if there's a problem, you'll get an error like:
tRadiationController.cpp:163: Failure
Value of: * refIter
Actual: 1.0999999999999992
Expected: * tarIter
Which is: 666
Vectors expectedTemp (refIter) and radTemperature (tarIter) differ at index 1
EDIT 7/7/09: Modified to allow passing the results of function calls into the arguments. This would unquestionably be better written as a templated function rather than a macro, except that we would not have the correct line number/file name, and our error message would not have the variable names.
0 comments:
Post a Comment