From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-22 05:02:23
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>> What are the advandates of the second method, assuming all my tests will
>> free-standing functions? Is there something that I loose by not switching
>> that method? I'm really trying to understand if I should invest any time
>>From top of my head.
> 1. You will get separate statistic for every test case (number of
> passed/failed assertions
> 2. Above If test_a throw an exception, test_b will never be executed.
> With test cases, each one have separate execution monitor. So test_b will
> run even if previous test case failed with exception.
> 3. Next release you will be able to run specific test cases by name
> 4. test cases would IMO much more clear reflect you intention.
Ok, the point 4 is a bit subjective. 1 and 3 rise a question. I have two
kinds of tests: those which are run during rebuild and which are supposed
to always pass, and those which have something to do with functionality
(although make use of unit_test_framework).
For the latter kind, I use QMTest (http://qmtest.com), which runs each test,
shows results, allows to run each test/suite by name, etc. I wonder if
there's some overlap in functionality with points 1 and 3. I recall you've
recently added output of tests result in XML --- the facility QMTest has as
So, do you think there's indeed overlap, and how much of it is desired? What
are future directions for Boost.Test?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk