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
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]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk