ASSERT_GE() is defined as: /** * ASSERT_GE(expected, seen) * * @expected: expected value * @seen: measured value * * ASSERT_GE(expected, measured): expected >= measured */ #define ASSERT_GE(expected, seen) \ __EXPECT(expected, #expected, seen, #seen, >=, 1) but that means that logically, if you want to write "assert that the measured PID X is >= the expected value 0", you actually have to use ASSERT_LE(0, X). That's really awkward. Normally you'd be talking about how the seen value compares to the expected one, not the other way around. At the moment I see tests that are instead written like ASSERT_GE(X, 0), but then that means that the expected and seen values are the wrong way around. It might be good if someone could refactor the definitions of ASSERT_GE and such to swap around which number is the expected and which is the seen one.
