Generate better default messages for isTrue().

[player-03]

Why print "expected true" when we could print the value(s) that caused the problem? The code already exists; we just have to use it. With this change, Assert.isTrue(1 + 1 > 4) will print "Failed: 1 + 1 > 4. Values: 2 > 4".

For simplicity, this only applies if you pass exactly one argument. If you pass a custom message or PosInfos (or even type out null as the message), it'll fall back to the old behavior.

[RealyUniqueName]

I doubt this should be enabled by default.
Rebuilding expressions for every test method could affect compilation times for big test suites.
Also having it for isTrue, but skipping isFalse looks inconsistent. But isFalse would require a different message.

[player-03]

How big is a "big test suite"? I have a suite of 650 tests and can't measure any difference in compile time.

[player-03]

If you're sure it needs to be optional, I'd suggest making it opt-out rather than opt-in. Premature optimization and all that: if we can't demonstrate a performance issue, shouldn't functionality win?

The problem with opt-in is that people might not realize they need to opt in until it's already too late. I sometimes use randomized tests, on the basis that over time they'll test a wide range of situations. But this tripped me up a couple times, because I'd get the "expected true" message with no indication of what the random values had been.

Luckily, I'm currently testing simple and straightforward mathematical constructs, and it has never taken too long to reproduce the errors. However, I'd argue that as project size increases, it becomes more likely to have one-in-a-million edge cases that you wouldn't be able to reproduce just by trying again.

[player-03]

This time I documented it!

utest can generate detailed failure messages for Assert.isTrue and Assert.> isFalse, but only if cond is either a comparison operator or function call. It also doesn't apply if a custom msg is already provided.

functiontestSum(){varx=3; Assert.isTrue(2+2==x+x); // Failed: 2 + 2 == x + x. Values: 4 == 6Assert.isTrue(2+3>=x+x); // Failed: 2 + 3 >= x + x. Values: 5 >= 6Assert.isTrue(2+3>=x+x, "custom"); // customvararray= [1, 2, 4, 8]; Assert.isTrue(array.contains(x)); // Failed: array.contains(x). Values: [1,2,4,8].contains(3) }

This behavior can be disabled using -D UTEST_FAILURE_REDUCE_DETAIL, or by adding UTEST_FAILURE_REDUCE_DETAIL to the environment variables at compile time. In that case, utest falls back to a generic failure message.

functiontestSum(){varx=3; Assert.isTrue(2+2==x+x); // expected trueAssert.isTrue(2+3>=x+x); // expected truevararray= [1, 2, 4, 8]; Assert.isTrue(array.contains(x)); // expected true }

I'm hoping the code sample also helps demonstrate why it's useful.

[player-03]

But isFalse would require a different message.

Added!

Rebuilding expressions for every test method could affect compilation times for big test suites.

I did some profiling this time around. In my test suite of 870 assertions, this code adds 0.05s-0.06s to the build time, about 1.5% of the total. And there's no reason that percentage would change significantly, so if some enormous test suite took 100 seconds to compile, this macro would bring it to ~101.5 seconds.

[player-03]

I still don't feel like a 1.5% increase is a big deal, but I've gone ahead and made it opt-in. Hopefully now this can be merged?

[player-03]

I fixed the merge conflict. Can we get this merged?

In case it helps, here's the new documentation describing the new opt-in approach:

Normally, when Assert.isTrue and Assert.isFalse fail, they only print "expected false" or "expected true", making it hard to diagnose the issue. To make diagnosis easier, utest offers the -D UTEST_DETAILED_MESSAGES option. Setting this makes the default messages more informative, while leaving custom messages untouched.

functiontestSum(){varx=3; Assert.isTrue(2+2==x+x); // Failed: 2 + 2 == x + x. Values: 4 == 6Assert.isTrue(2+3>=x+x); // Failed: 2 + 3 >= x + x. Values: 5 >= 6Assert.isFalse(2+4<=x+x); // Failed: 2 + 4 <= x + x should be false. Values: 6 <= 6Assert.isTrue(2+3>=x+x, "my custom message"); // my custom messagevararray= [1, 2, 4, 8]; Assert.isTrue(array.contains(x)); // Failed: array.contains(x). Values: [1,2,4,8].contains(3)Assert.isFalse(array.contains(2), "didn't expect 2"); // didn't expect 2// Currently, only binary operators and function calls are supported.// Other expressions such as array access will fall back to the default.varbools= [true, false]; Assert.isFalse(bools[0]); // expected falseAssert.isTrue(bools[1]); // expected true }