RE: [boost] [test] comparing collections

From: Rozental, Gennadiy (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-15 13:23:26

> Hello,
> I'm just writing some test and have so far the following code:
> 
>     vector<string> r = split_expression("1 + 1*2");
>     char* expected[] = {"1", "+", "1", "*", "2"};
> 
> I'd like to compare the result with expectation, but I cannot write:
> 
>      BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(r, vector<string>(expected, expected + 5));
> 
> because Boost.Test wants operator<< for vector<string>. I cannot write

Use BOOST_TEST_DONT_PRINT_LOG_VALUE( vector<string> ) before your test case
with latest cvs sources to make above to work.
 
>      BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL_COLLECTIONS(r.begin(), r.end(), expected);
> 
> either, because if 'r' has more elements than expected, the 
> test itself has 
> some chance of crashing. Of course, I can first compare sizes with 
> BOOST_REQUIRE, and then call BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL_COLLECTIONS, 
> but this solution is not so convenient.

I may have sense to use 2 checks, cause it looks like two different types of
errors.
 
> In fact, I'm just about to use the above code to illustrance 
> use of Boost.Test 
> to some folks, and I'm not sure I have any good explanation 
> why the check 
> cannot be done in one step.
> 
> Is it possible to have some macro which accept two iterator 
> ranges, as opposed 
> to one range and one iterator?

(I was trying to mimic STL algorithms here - they are using only one
sequence for bounds checking) 

> TIA,
> Volodya

There are many different kinds of test tools that may be introduced. I am
trying to include only those that most widely usable. In your case you have
already at least 3 solution supplied by the library:

1. Use BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL and BOOST_TEST_DONT_PRINT_LOG_VALUE.
2. Use BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL for sizes BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL_COLLECTIONS in a
current form.
3. Write your own predicate with your own error messages and use
BOOST_CHECK_PREDICATE.

It should cover your case IMO. What do you think?

Gennadiy.