Re: Lets stop using the CHECK macro in the test harness.

+1, agree to keep test running. Regards, Klaus Ma (马达), PMP® | http://www.cguru.net > On Aug 15, 2015, at 14:45, Bernd Mathiske wrote: > > +1, but… > > If we are going to touch all our tests, then IMHO while at it we might as > well make a jump forward to something better than the curre

Re: Lets stop using the CHECK macro in the test harness.

+1, but… If we are going to touch all our tests, then IMHO while at it we might as well make a jump forward to something better than the current local return void to abort tests in macros. If we used exceptions instead, it should be easy to catch those in a wrapper somewhere in the test class

Re: Lets stop using the CHECK macro in the test harness.

+1 *Marco Massenzio* *Distributed Systems Engineerhttp://codetrips.com * On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Paul Brett wrote: > We are currently using the Google log CHECK macros (CHECK_SOME, > CHECK_NOTNULL etc) in the test harness, usually to verify test setup. When > th

Lets stop using the CHECK macro in the test harness.

We are currently using the Google log CHECK macros (CHECK_SOME, CHECK_NOTNULL etc) in the test harness, usually to verify test setup. When these checks fail, it causes the test harness to abort rather than simply move onto the next test. The abort prevents any subsequent tests from running, hiding