@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ <h3 id="nearness">Nearness</h3>
189189< p > Prefer having checks inside test code.</ p >
190190< p > Not only does having test logic outside, e.g. verification method,
191191depending on asserts in product code contradict with several items above
192- but also decreases test’ s readability and stability. It is much easier
192+ but also decreases test' s readability and stability. It is much easier
193193to understand that a test is testing when all testing logic is located
194194inside a test or nearby in shared test libraries. As a rule of thumb,
195195the closer a check to a test, the better.</ p >
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ <h3 id="several-checks">Several checks</h3>
198198< p > Prefer < code > EXPECT</ code > over < code > ASSERT</ code > if possible.</ p >
199199< p > This is related to the < a href ="#informativeness "> informativeness</ a >
200200property of tests, information for other checks can help to better
201- localize a defect’ s root-cause. One should use < code > ASSERT</ code > if it
201+ localize a defect' s root-cause. One should use < code > ASSERT</ code > if it
202202is impossible to continue test execution or if it does not make much
203203sense. Later in the text, < code > EXPECT</ code > forms will be used to
204204refer to both < code > ASSERT/EXPECT</ code > .</ p >
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ <h3 id="floating-point-comparison">Floating-point comparison</h3>
235235< code > eps</ code > .</ p >
236236< h3 id ="c-string-comparison "> C string comparison</ h3 >
237237< p > Use string special macros for C strings comparisons.</ p >
238- < p > < code > EXPECT_EQ</ code > just compares pointers’ values, which is
238+ < p > < code > EXPECT_EQ</ code > just compares pointers' values, which is
239239hardly what one wants comparing C strings. GoogleTest provides
240240< code > EXPECT_STREQ</ code > and < code > EXPECT_STRNE</ code > macros to
241241compare C string contents. There are also case-insensitive versions
@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ <h3 id="test-group-names">Test group names</h3>
293293< p > This naming scheme helps to find tests, filter them and simplifies
294294test failure analysis. For example, class < code > Foo</ code > - test group
295295< code > Foo</ code > , compiler logging subsystem - test group
296- < code > CompilerLogging</ code > , G1 GC — test group < code > G1GC</ code > , and
296+ < code > CompilerLogging</ code > , G1 GC - test group < code > G1GC</ code > , and
297297so forth.</ p >
298298< h3 id ="filename "> Filename</ h3 >
299299< p > A test file must have < code > test_</ code > prefix and < code > .cpp</ code >
@@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ <h3 id="fixture-classes">Fixture classes</h3>
345345< h3 id ="friend-classes "> Friend classes</ h3 >
346346< p > All test purpose friends should have either < code > Test</ code > or
347347< code > Testable</ code > suffix.</ p >
348- < p > It greatly simplifies understanding of friendship’ s purpose and
348+ < p > It greatly simplifies understanding of friendship' s purpose and
349349allows statically check that private members are not exposed
350350unexpectedly. Having < code > FooTest</ code > as a friend of
351351< code > Foo</ code > without any comments will be understood as a necessary
@@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ <h3 id="test-specific-flags">Test-specific flags</h3>
435435< h3 id ="flag-restoring "> Flag restoring</ h3 >
436436< p > Restore changed flags.</ p >
437437< p > It is quite common for tests to configure JVM in a certain way
438- changing flags’ values. GoogleTest provides two ways to set up
438+ changing flags' values. GoogleTest provides two ways to set up
439439environment before a test and restore it afterward: using either
440440constructor and destructor or < code > SetUp</ code > and
441441< code > TearDown</ code > functions. Both ways require to use a test fixture
@@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ <h3 id="flag-restoring">Flag restoring</h3>
444444be used in such cases to restore/set values.</ p >
445445< p > Caveats:</ p >
446446< ul >
447- < li > < p > Changing a flag’ s value could break the invariants between flags'
447+ < li > < p > Changing a flag' s value could break the invariants between flags'
448448values and hence could lead to unexpected/unsupported JVM
449449state.</ p > </ li >
450450< li > < p > < code > FLAG_SET_*</ code > macros can change more than one flag (in
0 commit comments