From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-23 03:12:14
> 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
> 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
> So, do you think there's indeed overlap, and how much of it is desired?
After perfunctory look on QMTest docs it looks like we are in a different
domains. From what I view QMTest has nothing to do with *writing* C++ tests.
It's facility for *organizing* testing procedures. Most close counterpart in
boost would be Boost.Build testing faculties and utilities written by Beman
and others to analyze and interpret testing results.
> What are future directions for Boost.Test?
In general - whatever you could imagine testing framework may need. In
particularly I likes the QMTest idea of gui interface based on HTTP server.
But it may be very long term project (so long that I may never be able to
get my hands to it).
In short term I have a list of approximately 30 enhancements/features that
need to be implemented. Particularly soon coming revision to 1.30 release
will include(already implemented)
* function template test cases - you now could run test case for every type
in the specified types list
* significant revision in docs
* support for user supplied error messages in predicates
* several more minor enhancements
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk