Seems that people prefer this to be CPPUNIT_ASSERT() instead of assert()

My thinking was that there is a slight difference in meaning; that
assert() checks that the code (or, in this case, data) in the test
*itself* is as expected while CPPUNIT_ASSERT() checks that the
functionality *somewhere else* works as expected. But whatever.

Change-Id: I93f7f8cf2b3aac9e8fc35baf2dcbad1a4003773f

1 files changed, 8 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/sc/qa/unit/opencl-test.cxx b/sc/qa/unit/opencl-test.cxx
index 5d839d87f2a1..237dbf6248ba 100644
--- a/sc/qa/unit/opencl-test.cxx
+++ b/sc/qa/unit/opencl-test.cxx
@@ -768,17 +768,14 @@ void ScOpenCLTest::testSystematic()
         }
     }
 
-    assert(nAVertBegin != 0);
-    assert(nBVertBegin != 0);
-    assert(nAVertEnd > nAVertBegin + 100);
-    assert(nBVertEnd > nBVertBegin + 100);
-    assert((nAVertEnd-nAVertBegin) == (nBVertEnd-nBVertBegin));
-    assert(nAHorEnd > 10);
-    assert(nBHorEnd > 10);
-    assert(nAHorEnd == nBHorEnd);
-
-    (void) nBVertEnd;
-    (void) nBHorEnd;
+    CPPUNIT_ASSERT(nAVertBegin != 0);
+    CPPUNIT_ASSERT(nBVertBegin != 0);
+    CPPUNIT_ASSERT(nAVertEnd > nAVertBegin + 100);
+    CPPUNIT_ASSERT(nBVertEnd > nBVertBegin + 100);
+    CPPUNIT_ASSERT((nAVertEnd-nAVertBegin) == (nBVertEnd-nBVertBegin));
+    CPPUNIT_ASSERT(nAHorEnd > 10);
+    CPPUNIT_ASSERT(nBHorEnd > 10);
+    CPPUNIT_ASSERT(nAHorEnd == nBHorEnd);
 
     for (SCROW i = nAVertBegin; i < nAVertEnd; ++i)
     {