8e4d31c74c
This patch fixes some minor typos in comments and strings found by codespell. While at it, also expand some variable names that were not typos, but caused false positives, and end up being more readable anyway.
41 lines
810 B
Go
41 lines
810 B
Go
package set
|
|
|
|
import "testing"
|
|
|
|
func TestString(t *testing.T) {
|
|
s1 := &String{}
|
|
|
|
// Test that Has works on a new set.
|
|
if s1.Has("x") {
|
|
t.Error("'x' is in the empty set")
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
s1.Add("a")
|
|
s1.Add("b", "ccc")
|
|
|
|
expectStrings(s1, []string{"a", "b", "ccc"}, []string{"not-in"}, t)
|
|
|
|
s2 := NewString("a", "b", "c")
|
|
expectStrings(s2, []string{"a", "b", "c"}, []string{"not-in"}, t)
|
|
|
|
// Test that Has works (and not panics) on a nil set.
|
|
var s3 *String
|
|
if s3.Has("x") {
|
|
t.Error("'x' is in the nil set")
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func expectStrings(s *String, in []string, notIn []string, t *testing.T) {
|
|
for _, str := range in {
|
|
if !s.Has(str) {
|
|
t.Errorf("String %q not in set, it should be", str)
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
for _, str := range notIn {
|
|
if s.Has(str) {
|
|
t.Errorf("String %q is in the set, should not be", str)
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|