Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-21 01:31:58

> > > > > Yeah, testing this library is difficult. I'd be interested in
> > > > > discussing what an improved test would look like.
> >
> > Not that I thrust myself, but naybe new Test Library could help?
> I would hope so...
> -Dave

Here how one of the MPL tests would look like ( copyright comments removed):

#include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp>
using namespace boost::unit_test_framework;

// In fact I think following belongs to test tools, or maybe to test tools
extension I can provide, in which case output will be much more expressive
// something like: "file(line): test iter1 same as first fails: int_c<0> is
not the same as int<1>"
#define BOOST_CHECK_IS_SAME( type1, type2 ) \
   BOOST_CHECK( boost::is_same< type1, type2 >::value )

#include "boost/mpl/vector/vector10_c.hpp"
#include "boost/mpl/advance.hpp"
#include "boost/mpl/begin_end.hpp"

namespace mpl = boost::mpl;

void test_advance()
    typedef mpl::vector10_c<int,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9> numbers;
    typedef mpl::begin<numbers>::type first;
    typedef mpl::end<numbers>::type last;

    typedef mpl::advance_c<first,10>::type iter1;
    typedef mpl::advance_c<last,-10>::type iter2;

    BOOST_CHECK_IS_SAME(iter1, last);
    BOOST_CHECK_IS_SAME(iter2, first);

init_unit_test_suite( int argc, char* argv[] ) {
    test_suite* test = BOOST_TEST_SUITE( "MPL unit test" );

    test->add( BOOST_TEST_CASE( &test_advance ), /* 1 - here you could pun
expected number of failures */ );
    // BTW I do not see a reason why should we keep one test case per file,
since all test cases are named
    // here we could have as much test->add( BOOST_TEST_CASE( &test_??? ) as
we want

    return test;

What do you think?


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