From: Rozental, Gennadiy (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-25 02:17:42
> My tests are already arranged in a way that 'test/minimal.hpp' offers too
> little functionality while a whole test framework, such as
> test_execution_monitor or unit_test_framework requires me link or
> include too many translation units.
Well currently Boost.Test propose three configuration:
2. Full linked
3. Full included
Does not any one of them fit for you? What are the issues? What set of
features you are looking for?
> As a result, I don't want to use the Test
> Library (but we could discuss this, because I might be biased by its
> perceived complexity)
I still hope to satisfy your requests for new features and explain
everything that seems complex.
> A quick search for BOOST_NO_STRINGSTREAM reveals that there is a sort
> of 'idiom' which is extensively used -by hand- among many unit tests
> (i.e, including the appropriate header and dealing later with either
> ostrstream or ostringstream).
> I also found that this idiom is very well captured by the Test Library
> under the form of the class 'wrapstrstream', which comes exactly as
> handy as most of the unit tests I've seen need it.
You may nor remark it but this class change the interface a little right
after 1.29 came out to implement different fix for the issue with copy
> Therefore, is it possible to factor out this class so it can be used
> Say, as /utility/wrapstrstream.hpp.
> Gennaidy, what do you think?
> Fernando Cacciola
Well, if there is an interest in reuse of this class I do not see the reason
why not. BTW at very end of 1.29 I added nullstream.hpp into details section
of Boost.Test (borrowed and reworked a bit from Daryle Walker more_io). It
also belongs somewhere in utility.
P.S. Sorry it took me so long to answer. I just was overloaded at the work
and with serialization review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk