When comparing floating-point values, checking for equality might lead to unexpected results. Rounding errors can lead to a result that is close to the expected one, but not equal. As a consequence, an assertion might fail when checking for equality of two floating-point quantities even if the program is implemented correctly.
Hey, I wrote some unit tests for my code. Unfortunately, if a test fails I am not getting the failure message, that I defined like this: EXPECT_ DOUBLE_EQ (0.009, min) << Min value of row 0 not equal 0.009 I run the tests in the package directory with: make test. The output looks like this: [==========] Running 4 tests from 1 test case.10/16/2008 · EXPECT_ DOUBLE_EQ (expected, actual) In Java, JUnit overloads Assert.assertEquals for floating-point types: assertEquals(float expected, float actual, float delta) assertEquals(double expected, double actual, double delta) An example (in C++): TEST(SquareRootTest, CorrectResultForPositiveNumbers) { EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(2.0f, FloatSquareRoot(4.0f)), 5/11/2010 · The ASSERT_* variants abort the program execution if an assertion fails while EXPECT_* variants continue with the run. In either case, when an assertion fails , it prints the file name, line number, and a message that you can customize. Some of the simpler assertions include ASSERT_TRUE (condition) and ASSERT_NE (val1, val2). The former expects the condition to always be true while the.10/11/2020 · Consider using EXPECT_ DOUBLE_EQ instead. Note that EXPECT_ DOUBLE_EQ doesn’t actually check for equality – it checks that the doubles are equal within four units in the last place (ULPs). See my Comparing Floating Point Numbers post for details on this concept.EXPECT_ DOUBLE_EQ (val1, val2) #define EXPECT_EQ(val1, val2) #define EXPECT_FALSE(condition) #define EXPECT_FLOAT_EQ(val1, val2) #define EXPECT_GE(val1, val2) …
