Re: [boost] Review: Test library

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-02-20 11:26:28

At 08:34 AM 2/20/2001 -0600, Ed Brey wrote:

 >Ooops.  Forgot to integrate my own suggestion.  Maybe this is my inner 
self
 >trying to say that it isn't worth distinguishing between failure and
 >non-standard return types.

My instinct is that "**** Returned with nonstandard error code " is too 
confusing.  Remember that the reader may be an operations person with no 
knowledge of the C++ standard.

The first rule of automated tests are that they report a clear pass or 
fail. But I'll think about it some more before actually changing the code.

Thanks for the comments.  Test issues are pretty boring compared to some of 
the Boost libraries, but I'm hoping that having a Boost test library will 
encourage better test practices, both for Boost itself and for Boost users.

I'm really hoping someone will volunteer to build unit test tools on top of 
the other Boost test tools.

--Beman