Re: [boost] Boost Test Tools Library Proposal

From: Thomas Matelich (sosedada_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-07 15:50:56

Ullrich Koethe wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I followed the discussion about a unit test library and had a look at
> "test_tools". I realized that this library's intend is very close to a
> unit test library I've been using for a long time in my own projects,
> with very good results. Thus, I'm submitting my library "unittest.h" for
> consideration. The file is attached to the mail.
>
> "unittest.h" was designed following the ideas of Kent Becks "JUnit"
> (see "http://www.junit.org/"). It has the following features:

I had considered suggesting an xUnit flavor (I really like the idea of using Python to test
C++ somehow), but upon more thought I decided against it for two reasons:
1) complexity - we have more than our share of unresolved issues regarding building
executables.  Anything that increases that is probably a bad thing.  Beman's is simple and
sufficient (almost? can you test that an exception was thrown on error?).

2) non-standard - Two things here my DynCppUnit is different than the CppUnit on
xprogramming.com is different than Ullrich's.  The basic concept is the same, but I would
prefer to wait (and wait) for ScTest, before jumping into a more heavy-weight testing
framework.

On a side note to those interested in unit tests, I've got a pretty cool little thing going
where you put your tests (linked with the code under test) into a dynamic library and my
little gui loads the library and runs its tests.  Essentially test plugins.

--
Thomas O Matelich
Senior Software Designer
Zetec, Inc.
sosedada_at_[hidden]
tmatelich_at_[hidden]