From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-11 11:08:42
Ullrich Koethe wrote:
>Beman Dawes wrote:
>> ... Perhaps the reason we haven't made more progress on such ideas
>> in the past is that there are three needs (at least as seen by me):
>> 1) A main() replacement for console apps which turns as many problems
>> possible into a uniform return code. Note that while this is useful
>> testing, it is also very useful for production programs, and so
>> carry a lot of baggage related only to testing. It is helpful if it is
>> very easy to retrofit to legacy programs, too.
>unittest.h provides a test class which has a test routine that executes
>all registered tests. It is up to the programmer where the call to the
>test routine goes. Tests report their results in a string plus a count
>of failed tests. So one can use unittest.h in a command line tool and
>call tests in main() or in test_main(), but it's also possible to put it
>in a GUI based tool, where it is invoked by pressing a button, and
>results are reported in a window.
So that ("possible to put in a GUI based tool...") become need (4). Seems
reasonable to me.
>I hope my remarks shed some light on this.
Yes. I'll have to think about it a bit, but it seems it should be possible
to supply the full features of unittest.h more or less unchanged, yet come
a bit closer to test_tools.hpp and test_tools_main.hpp for the simpler (1)
and (2) needs.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk