rlExpected := 1.0 / 0.0; // results in NaNAssertEquals_REAL(0.0, rlExpected, 0.0001, 'comparison of a valid REAL and NaN should fail');
What I expected.
A comparison between a float value and NaN should be a fail.
Comparison between NaN, +Inf, -Inf should also be supported. If both Expected and Actual are NaN (etc) it should pass.
It seems that if all the variables in the function I'm testing are 0.0 then the math can return NaN however if only the divisor (rl2) is 0.0 then the controller will throw a divide-by-zero exception.
We are aware that certain details in the framework are sub optimal. However, that said, every tip/hint we get to optimise is one step in the right direction.
So, since you found this issue, I hope you could also submit a patch which catches the Not A Number status and yields a fail in the assert.
You can submit your patch in multiple ways. My suggestion would be that you just drop a code here in the Ticket. The reason behind this because I dont know if you hvae the Professional Developer Edition with Git , since we stepped over from SVN to git.
PS Have you found it in v1200?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
A note about this.
It seems that if all the variables in the function I'm testing are
0.0then the math can returnNaNhowever if only the divisor (rl2) is0.0then the controller will throw a divide-by-zero exception.It is interesting the things you discover as you create more test cases. (Thanks for your work on this library <3 )
Last edit: jtebokkel 2022-03-09
Hi John,
We are aware that certain details in the framework are sub optimal. However, that said, every tip/hint we get to optimise is one step in the right direction.
So, since you found this issue, I hope you could also submit a patch which catches the Not A Number status and yields a fail in the assert.
You can submit your patch in multiple ways. My suggestion would be that you just drop a code here in the Ticket. The reason behind this because I dont know if you hvae the Professional Developer Edition with Git , since we stepped over from SVN to git.
PS Have you found it in v1200?
See the attached files.
Yes, this is in v1.2.0.0