Re: unit test framework comments

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 
felt that 
> test tools could be more sophisticated if they were built on top of 
the 
> unit test framework.  In my mind that makes the unit test tools 
> unnecessarily complex and introduces an undesirable dependency.  On 
the 
> plus side, it does make the test tools more capable, and more 
uniform with 
> unit tests.
> 
> At the time of that discussion, I don't think we realized that 
adding the 
> dependency on unit test might mean that test tools could become 
unusable on 
> 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 
know of?

> 
> --Beman

Gennadiy