RFR(S): 8165433: Convert Test_linked_list to Gtest

[Coleen Phillimore]

This looks good.
Coleen


On 9/12/16 8:16 AM, Kirill Zhaldbybin wrote:
> David,
>
> Thank you for review!
>
> Regards, Kirill
>
> On 09/09/2016 08:03 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 8/09/2016 10:32 PM, Kirill Zhaldybin wrote:
>>> Igor,
>>>
>>> Thank you for clarifying this!
>>
>> Indeed! Thank you very much.
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Here are a new WebRev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kzhaldyb/webrevs/JDK-8165433/webrev.03/
>>>
>>> I changed asserts like ASSERT_NE(i, (Integer*) NULL) to ASSERT_TRUE,
>>> changed order in ASSERT_EQ with NULL, changed order in ASSERT_EQ to 
>>> make
>>> expected value first parameter.
>>>
>>> Could you please let me know your opinion?
>>
>> Looks terrific! :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Regards, Kirill
>>>
>>> On 08.09.2016 12:22, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> I ain’t Kim, but if you don’t mind I’d like to say what I see as the
>>>> best way to handle that is and why.
>>>>
>>>> as Kirill said gtest’s asserts are strict about types and one will get
>>>> compile time error trying to compare different types, long and pointer
>>>> in this case (as the matter of fact, you can not compare pointers to
>>>> different types either). however gtest supports comparison w/ NULL,
>>>> but only in ASSERT/EXPECT_EQ and only if NULL is the 1st argument[1].
>>>> so you can easily write ASSERT_EQ(NULL, i), but you can not write
>>>> ASSERT_NE(NULL, i), you have to write ASSERT_NE(i != NULL) instead,
>>>> [2] is the explanation from gtest faq why it so, in two words: in case
>>>> ASSERT_NE(i, NULL) fails, you do know the value of i so ASSERT_TRUE(i
>>>> != NULL) won’t lose any information.
>>>>
>>>> summing up, Kirill’s code can be changed like that:
>>>>> diff -r 28f34e9482b4 test/native/utilities/test_linkedlist.cpp
>>>>>     Integer* i = ll.find(six);
>>>>> -  ASSERT_NE(i, (Integer*) NULL) << "Should find it";
>>>>> +  ASSERT_TRUE(i != NULL) << "Should find it";
>>>>>     ASSERT_EQ(i->value(), six.value()) << "Should be 6";
>>>>>       i = ll.find(three);
>>>>> -  ASSERT_EQ(i, (Integer*) NULL) << "Not in the list";
>>>>> +  ASSERT_EQ(NULL, i) << "Not in the list";
>>>> as you can see, there is no casting.
>>>>
>>>> could you please let me know what you think about the proposed way?
>>>>
>>>> [1] actually, the 1st argument in ASSERT/EXPECT_EQ is assumed to be an
>>>> expected value, so you should write ASSERT_EQ(5, a) not 
>>>> ASSERT_EQ(a, 5)
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/docs/V1_7_FAQ.md#why-does-google-test-support-expect_eqnull-ptr-and-assert_eqnull-ptr-but-not-expect_nenull-ptr-and-assert_nenull-ptr 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> — Igor
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 8, 2016, at 10:18 AM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should not have to cast NULL:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 77   ASSERT_EQ(i, (Integer*) NULL) << "Not in the list";
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> why is this needed? Is this something broken in gtest ??
>>>>>> There is no ASSERT_NULL (we likely should add it) in GTest so 
>>>>>> ASSERT_EQ
>>>>>> is used.
>>>>>> ASSERT_EQ is pretty strict about types so since NULL resolves to 
>>>>>> long
>>>>>> int (at least on my host) it cannot be compared with Integer*.
>>>>> I'm unhappy about this, it is a deficiency in Gtest. We should not be
>>>>> casting  0 or NULL to specific pointer types.
>>>>>
>>>>> cc'ing Kim to get his opinion on the best way to handle this.
>>>
>