Re: [boost] Re: Test monitor vs. unit test framework

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-23 05:49:15

"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> 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
>> well.
>>
>> 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).

Brian Warner, the author of BuildBot
(http://buildbot.sourceforge.net/) Has offered to help us get it going
for Boost.  I'm following up with him now.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com