From: Gennadiy E. Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-31 02:24:01
--- In boost_at_y..., Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_a...> wrote:
> At 02:31 PM 10/30/2001, Mike Attili wrote:
> >Specific comments on the present implementation below,
> >but first a more general observation.
> >It seems to me that there should be a clean separation
> >between the 'test tools' and the 'unit test tools'. At
> >the moment, 'test_tools.hpp' simply includes 'unit_test.hpp'.
> >I see the 'test tools' interface comprising the current
> >'unit_test_tools.hpp' and 'unit_test_log.hpp' plus
> >'test_main.cpp'. This gives one the ability to use
> >the various BOOST_TEST(), BOOST_CHECK(), etc. macros
> >without pulling in the whole test case/test suite
> >machinery. There would always only be one test case
> >so there is no sense in setting the number of test
> >cases or reporting progress.
> That was like my original design, but Ullrich Koethe and others
> test tools could be more sophisticated if they were built on top of
> unit test framework. In my mind that makes the unit test tools
> unnecessarily complex and introduces an undesirable dependency. On
> plus side, it does make the test tools more capable, and more
> unit tests.
> At the time of that discussion, I don't think we realized that
> dependency on unit test might mean that test tools could become
> some platforms.
I do not think that situation is that bad. I believe we should be
able to create portable implementation. Any specific problems you
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk