Boost logo

Boost :

From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-21 20:47:32

--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:

> About the testing methodology: It seems as though the tests are
> so we won't know when something gets fixed. Tests which are
expected to fail
> to compile on a given compiler never actually happen. The number of
> reportedly expected for a compiler (e.g.
msvc/object_type_traits_test) may
> far exceed the number set in the expected_failures variable for any
> test. What can we do so that the status of a given trait on a given
> is more-reliably reported? We have everything we need in
status/Jamfile in
> order to get fine-grained and accurate reports.
> I also made the following change. It causes tests to fail if they
> match their expected number of failures exactly. I needed to do
that in
> order to see that the change fixed anything:
new Boost Test Library is also checking number of failures expected
using less. Would you prefer equal?


> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
> David Abrahams
> C++ Booster ( O__ ==
> Pythonista ( c/ /'_ ==
> resume: (*) \(*) ==
> email: david.abrahams_at_r...
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at