Interesting. What is failing is
[junit] Testcase: testSignDouble took 0.004 sec
[junit] FAILED
[junit] expected:<NaN> but was:<NaN>
[junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: expected:<NaN> but
was:<NaN>
[junit] at
org.apache.commons.math.util.MathUtilsTest.testSignDouble(MathUtilsTest.java:931)
[junit]
[junit] Testcase: testSignFloat took 0.001 sec
[junit] FAILED
[junit] expected:<NaN> but was:<NaN>
[junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: expected:<NaN> but
was:<NaN>
[junit] at
org.apache.commons.math.util.MathUtilsTest.testSignFloat(MathUtilsTest.java:939)
The relevant test code is:
assertEquals(-0. / 0., MathUtils.sign(Double.NaN), delta);
This works using junit 4+ (the math m2 build uses 4.4). It looks like
Gump may be using Junit head.
I think this kind of test may have failed in earlier versions of Junit,
which is why we created TestUtils.asseertSame. I will make this change
and see if it makes Gump happy, but I am wondering if this is a
regression in Junit head. Anyone know?
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
