From ef539937deb9820b70cf096fc65aead7c74c3470 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "W. David Dagenhart" <wdd@fnal.gov>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 18:37:59 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Add check of put values to unit test

---
 FWCore/Integration/test/SwitchProducer_t.cpp | 14 ++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)

diff --git a/FWCore/Integration/test/SwitchProducer_t.cpp b/FWCore/Integration/test/SwitchProducer_t.cpp
index ebf9eed89c0ae..464f0a242a2af 100644
--- a/FWCore/Integration/test/SwitchProducer_t.cpp
+++ b/FWCore/Integration/test/SwitchProducer_t.cpp
@@ -259,9 +259,23 @@ TEST_CASE("Configuration with different transient branches", s_tag) {
   SECTION("Different transient branches are allowed") {
     edm::test::TestProcessor::Config config1{baseConfig1};
     edm::test::TestProcessor testProcessor1{config1};
+    auto event1 = testProcessor1.test();
+    REQUIRE(event1.get<edmtest::IntProduct>()->value == 2);
+
+    // It would be better if the next line of executable code would
+    // throw an exception, but that is not the current expected behavior.
+    // It would be nice to have all cases of a SwitchProducer fail if
+    // any case fails on a "get" (but it is intentional and desirable
+    // that it does not fail only because a  case declares it produces
+    // different transient products). We decided it was not worth the
+    // effort and complexity to implement this behavior (at least not yet).
+    REQUIRE(event1.get<edmtest::TransientIntProduct>("foo")->value == 3);
 
     edm::test::TestProcessor::Config config2{baseConfig2};
     edm::test::TestProcessor testProcessor2{config2};
+    auto event2 = testProcessor2.test();
+    REQUIRE(event2.get<edmtest::IntProduct>()->value == 1);
+    REQUIRE_THROWS(event2.get<edmtest::TransientIntProduct>()->value == 3);
   }
 }