100 + EXPECT_FALSE(r.contains(Rectangle{{left,top}, {1,0}})); 104 + EXPECT_FALSE(r.contains(Rectangle{{left,top}, {1,0}}));
125 + EXPECT_FALSE(r.contains(Rectangle{{left,top}, {1,0}})); 129 + EXPECT_FALSE(r.contains(Rectangle{{left,top}, {1,0}}));
Is there a reason to recheck for these?
Having a unit test for the expected behavior of empty rectangles is, of course, desirable, but I think a comment in the code would be more helpful for users of the class.
« Back to merge proposal
100 + EXPECT_ FALSE(r. contains( Rectangle{ {left,top} , {1,0}})); FALSE(r. contains( Rectangle{ {left,top} , {1,0}}));
104 + EXPECT_
125 + EXPECT_ FALSE(r. contains( Rectangle{ {left,top} , {1,0}})); FALSE(r. contains( Rectangle{ {left,top} , {1,0}}));
129 + EXPECT_
Is there a reason to recheck for these?
Having a unit test for the expected behavior of empty rectangles is, of course, desirable, but I think a comment in the code would be more helpful for users of the class.