Precision of Junit 5's assertEquals with double
1
Looks like exact doubles aren't considered equal in junit 5
The following code fails in junit 5
public void testDouble() {
org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals(87.91622222222225d, 87.91622222222225d, 0.0);
}
and the same in junit 4, passes the test
public void testDouble() {
org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(87.91622222222225d, 87.91622222222225d, 0.0);
}
Is there a good explanation for this difference?
java junit junit4 junit5
asked Nov 24 '18 at 14:02
RajRaj
3653622
add a comment |
1
Looks like exact doubles aren't considered equal in junit 5
The following code fails in junit 5
public void testDouble() {
org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals(87.91622222222225d, 87.91622222222225d, 0.0);
}
and the same in junit 4, passes the test
public void testDouble() {
org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(87.91622222222225d, 87.91622222222225d, 0.0);
}
Is there a good explanation for this difference?
java junit junit4 junit5
asked Nov 24 '18 at 14:02
RajRaj
3653622
3
Read the error message you got. It tells you precisely what the problem is: "positive delta expected but was: <0.0>". If you don't want a delta, use the method that doesn't take a delta.
– JB Nizet
Nov 24 '18 at 14:07
@JBNizet Thanks. That explains it.
– Raj
Nov 24 '18 at 14:17
Still interested in the rationale behind the change, because this single change makes it very difficult to migrate JUnit 4 code.
– Duncan Calvert
Dec 10 '18 at 19:23
add a comment |
1
1
1
Looks like exact doubles aren't considered equal in junit 5
The following code fails in junit 5
public void testDouble() {
org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals(87.91622222222225d, 87.91622222222225d, 0.0);
}
and the same in junit 4, passes the test
public void testDouble() {
org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(87.91622222222225d, 87.91622222222225d, 0.0);
}
Is there a good explanation for this difference?
java junit junit4 junit5
asked Nov 24 '18 at 14:02
RajRaj
3653622
Looks like exact doubles aren't considered equal in junit 5
The following code fails in junit 5
public void testDouble() {
org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals(87.91622222222225d, 87.91622222222225d, 0.0);
}
and the same in junit 4, passes the test
public void testDouble() {
org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(87.91622222222225d, 87.91622222222225d, 0.0);
}
Is there a good explanation for this difference?
java junit junit4 junit5
java junit junit4 junit5
asked Nov 24 '18 at 14:02
RajRaj
3653622
asked Nov 24 '18 at 14:02
RajRaj
3653622
asked Nov 24 '18 at 14:02
RajRaj
3653622
asked Nov 24 '18 at 14:02
RajRaj
3653622
asked Nov 24 '18 at 14:02
RajRaj
3653622
3653622
3
Read the error message you got. It tells you precisely what the problem is: "positive delta expected but was: <0.0>". If you don't want a delta, use the method that doesn't take a delta.
– JB Nizet
Nov 24 '18 at 14:07
@JBNizet Thanks. That explains it.
– Raj
Nov 24 '18 at 14:17
Still interested in the rationale behind the change, because this single change makes it very difficult to migrate JUnit 4 code.
– Duncan Calvert
Dec 10 '18 at 19:23
add a comment |
3
Read the error message you got. It tells you precisely what the problem is: "positive delta expected but was: <0.0>". If you don't want a delta, use the method that doesn't take a delta.
– JB Nizet
Nov 24 '18 at 14:07
@JBNizet Thanks. That explains it.
– Raj
Nov 24 '18 at 14:17
Still interested in the rationale behind the change, because this single change makes it very difficult to migrate JUnit 4 code.
– Duncan Calvert
Dec 10 '18 at 19:23
3
3
Read the error message you got. It tells you precisely what the problem is: "positive delta expected but was: <0.0>". If you don't want a delta, use the method that doesn't take a delta.
– JB Nizet
Nov 24 '18 at 14:07
Read the error message you got. It tells you precisely what the problem is: "positive delta expected but was: <0.0>". If you don't want a delta, use the method that doesn't take a delta.
– JB Nizet
Nov 24 '18 at 14:07
@JBNizet Thanks. That explains it.
– Raj
Nov 24 '18 at 14:17
@JBNizet Thanks. That explains it.
– Raj
Nov 24 '18 at 14:17
Still interested in the rationale behind the change, because this single change makes it very difficult to migrate JUnit 4 code.
– Duncan Calvert
Dec 10 '18 at 19:23
Still interested in the rationale behind the change, because this single change makes it very difficult to migrate JUnit 4 code.
– Duncan Calvert
Dec 10 '18 at 19:23
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53458934%2fprecision-of-junit-5s-assertequals-with-double%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53458934%2fprecision-of-junit-5s-assertequals-with-double%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Read the error message you got. It tells you precisely what the problem is: "positive delta expected but was: <0.0>". If you don't want a delta, use the method that doesn't take a delta.
– JB Nizet
Nov 24 '18 at 14:07
@JBNizet Thanks. That explains it.
– Raj
Nov 24 '18 at 14:17
Still interested in the rationale behind the change, because this single change makes it very difficult to migrate JUnit 4 code.
– Duncan Calvert
Dec 10 '18 at 19:23