Re: Review: Boost.Test

From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-13 15:19:22

--- In boost_at_y..., Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_a...> wrote:
> I would like to see Boost.Test accepted, but only after resolution 
of major 
> issues.
> 

> *  The issue of compiled versus header implementation needs to be 
better 
> resolved.  If existing uses aren't compatible with the new 
Boost.Test, we 
> need to figure out and document the transition path for current 
> users.  This is a serious problem.  If it isn't possible to provide 
a 
> light-weight version of test tools which is implemented on top of 
unit 
> tests, it might be necessary to have a second light-weight 
implementation 
> (as headers).  Hopefully that won't have to happen; perhaps all 
that will 
> be needed is a forwarding header that in effect does what 
> "example/online_test.cpp" does.

You should not have a proplem with *compilation* of existent test 
programs. But you will need to change a jamfiles to link with the 
appropriate compinent of test library (Test Execution Monitor in most 
cases)

> 
> *  The floating point comparison issues are tricky, yet haven't 
been 
> reviewed fully because the refactoring came up during the actual 
review. 
> (I'm not arguing against refactoring, just saying that it needs 
further 
> review both from the general Boost standpoint and from numerics 
experts.)

It really simple (trivial) algorithm |a-b|/|a| <= e ( instead of a == 
b ). The issues could come up with choosing of proper epsilon value, 
which is really should be reviewed by numeric experts.

> 
> *  The public (rather than detail) header files expose functions 
which 
> aren't documented, presumably because their usual use is via the 
macro 
> wrappers.  Either these should be documented or moved into a detail 
> namespace.  (I think someone else made the same point.)

OK. I will put them in the detail namespace.

> 
> *  The details of test outputs for each possible type of failure, 
and for 
> each level of logging, are quite important to users.  I'm sorry no 
reviewer 
> (including me!) has commented on this aspect of Boost.Test:-(

Ok. I will put additional description of each log level. What type of 
failures do you mean: fatal and non-fatal?

> 
> While the issues above are serious and need to be resolved, they 
shouldn't 
> obscure the fact that Boost.Test is a very nice testing package 
indeed.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --Beman

Gennadiy.