From 6faa92244b509a546dd95fc65c95f2996d8c032e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ptahmose Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 12:03:02 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] cosmetic --- .../test_TileAccessorCoverageOptimization.cpp | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Src/libCZI_UnitTests/test_TileAccessorCoverageOptimization.cpp b/Src/libCZI_UnitTests/test_TileAccessorCoverageOptimization.cpp index ca395d92..e4e3d0a6 100644 --- a/Src/libCZI_UnitTests/test_TileAccessorCoverageOptimization.cpp +++ b/Src/libCZI_UnitTests/test_TileAccessorCoverageOptimization.cpp @@ -587,8 +587,8 @@ TEST(TileAccessorCoverageOptimization, CheckForVisibility_TestCase5) { static constexpr array kSubBlocks{ IntRect{0,0,1,1}, IntRect{0,0,1,1}, IntRect{1,0,1,2}, IntRect{2,0,3,3}, IntRect{2,0,1,1}, IntRect{1,0,2,3} }; - // the function CheckForVisibilityCore is supposed to return a vector with indices 'as they are used to call into - // 'get_subblock_index'-functor (**not** the subblock-index as returned from this functor). We check this here by + // the function CheckForVisibilityCore is supposed to return a vector with indices "as they are used to call into + // 'get_subblock_index'-functor" (**not** the subblock-index as returned from this functor). We check this here by // returning a "non-zero-based"-index from the functor, where we then check that the returned vector contains the // correct results according to above rule (and the function's documentation).