Test coverage for search_n with forward iterators
#5439
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tests/std/tests/VSO_0000000_vector_algorithms_search_n/test.cpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
tests/std/tests/VSO_0000000_vector_algorithms_search_n/test.cpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
StephanTLavavej
approved these changes
May 3, 2025
|
Thanks! 😸 I pushed trivial changes and a conflict-free merge. |
|
I'm mirroring this to the MSVC-internal repo - please notify me if any further changes are pushed. |
|
Thanks for exercising more codepaths! 🏋️♂️ 😻 🚀 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Resolves #933
The iterator was copied and adapted from 'P0202R3_constexpr_algorithm_and_exchange'.
Not doing fancy stuff from example test in #933: no pretty print failure and no command-line seed. These should be done consistently for all vector algorithms, if we want that. They would be convenient to have, but not strictly necessary.