Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Codelab Issue] Testing Codelab 5.1, Step 6 - Semantics of assertEquals #241

Open
hirokihokari opened this issue Apr 16, 2021 · 1 comment

Comments

@hirokihokari
Copy link

Describe the problem
The dyad signature of assertEquals in JUnit is assertEquals(expected, actual).
In fact, when the assertion fails, the error message is:

Expected :[expected]
Actual   :[actual]

The provided code sample lists the arguments in the semantically wrong order:

assertEquals(result.completedTasksPercent, 0f)

, which implies whatever the return of result.completedTasksPercent is the expected value and 0f is the actual value that we're testing.

This doesn't have any negative effect when it passes, but when it doesn't (for example, here I've modified the implementation code to statically return 100f), the error message is indeed:

Expected :100.0
Actual   :0.0

, which incorrectly documents the app behavior as Given 1 Active task and not else, completedPercent of getActiveAndCompletedStats(), Equals 100f

In which lesson and step of the codelab can this issue be found?
5.1, Step 6

How to reproduce?
It's not a bug.

Versions
No relevant

Additional information
I'm not sure if this is the right place to submit the issue about the instruction. Please guide me to a more appropriate place if any.

codelab: advanced-android-kotlin

@JoseAlcerreca
Copy link
Contributor

You are totally right about this and the reason many people ignore the names of the parameters is that the natural way to write an assertion is (UUT, expected). However we should probably change them.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants