unittests: Use EXPECT_ instead of ASSERT_ in a few tests

[arsenm]

No description provided.

[arsenm]

• Support: Fix program error test failures when using fork #129252
• unittests: Use EXPECT_ instead of ASSERT_ in a few tests #129251 👈 (View in Graphite)
• llvm-rc: Relax error message checked in test #129243
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-support

Author: Matt Arsenault (arsenm)

Changes

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/129251.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) llvm/unittests/Support/ProgramTest.cpp (+6-6)

diff --git a/llvm/unittests/Support/ProgramTest.cpp b/llvm/unittests/Support/ProgramTest.cpp
index b1b35eacd1f61..47d2e269afe94 100644
--- a/llvm/unittests/Support/ProgramTest.cpp
+++ b/llvm/unittests/Support/ProgramTest.cpp
@@ -422,10 +422,10 @@ TEST(ProgramTest, TestExecuteNegative) {
     bool ExecutionFailed;
     int RetCode = ExecuteAndWait(Executable, argv, std::nullopt, {}, 0, 0,
                                  &Error, &ExecutionFailed);
-    ASSERT_LT(RetCode, 0) << "On error ExecuteAndWait should return 0 or "
+    EXPECT_LT(RetCode, 0) << "On error ExecuteAndWait should return 0 or "
                              "positive value indicating the result code";
-    ASSERT_TRUE(ExecutionFailed);
-    ASSERT_FALSE(Error.empty());
+    EXPECT_TRUE(ExecutionFailed);
+    EXPECT_FALSE(Error.empty());
   }
 
   {
@@ -433,10 +433,10 @@ TEST(ProgramTest, TestExecuteNegative) {
     bool ExecutionFailed;
     ProcessInfo PI = ExecuteNoWait(Executable, argv, std::nullopt, {}, 0,
                                    &Error, &ExecutionFailed);
-    ASSERT_EQ(PI.Pid, ProcessInfo::InvalidPid)
+    EXPECT_EQ(PI.Pid, ProcessInfo::InvalidPid)
         << "On error ExecuteNoWait should return an invalid ProcessInfo";
-    ASSERT_TRUE(ExecutionFailed);
-    ASSERT_FALSE(Error.empty());
+    EXPECT_TRUE(ExecutionFailed);
+    EXPECT_FALSE(Error.empty());
   }
 
 }

[arsenm]

Merge activity

• Mar 1, 9:21 PM EST: A user started a stack merge that includes this pull request via Graphite.
• Mar 1, 9:27 PM EST: Graphite rebased this pull request as part of a merge.
• Mar 1, 9:29 PM EST: A user merged this pull request with Graphite.