We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
I was trying to test a string view default constructor and to see if the pointer was indeed null. Since I've assigned nullptr to it.
nullptr
#define DOCTEST_CONFIG_IMPLEMENT_WITH_MAIN #include "doctest.h" struct test { const char * ptr; test() : ptr(nullptr) { } const char * get() const { return ptr; } }; TEST_CASE("dummy") { test o; FAST_REQUIRE_NE(o.get(), nullptr); }
Output:
src\main.cpp(15) TEST CASE: dummy src\main.cpp(19) FATAL ERROR! FAST_REQUIRE_NE( o.get(), nullptr ) with expansion: FAST_REQUIRE_NE( NULL, nullptr )
Am I required to use NULL instead of nullptr ? Because I would prefer the later.
NULL
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Seems to work if i use CHECK(o.get() == nullptr); I guess I should use that instead. But still bothers me why the first approach failed.
CHECK(o.get() == nullptr);
Sorry, something went wrong.
Never mind. I was too focused on the error to notice my copy/paste mistake. As I was testing NE instead of EQ. My apologies.
NE
EQ
Glad you solved the issue :)
No branches or pull requests
Description
I was trying to test a string view default constructor and to see if the pointer was indeed null. Since I've assigned
nullptr
to it.Steps to reproduce
Output:
Am I required to use
NULL
instead ofnullptr
? Because I would prefer the later.Extra information
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: