Boost logo

Boost :

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 (, 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
( Has offered to help us get it going
for Boost. I'm following up with him now.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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