From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-19 14:11:35
David Abrahams wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>It might be still possible to reuse the test running/result storing
>>>infrastructure, but IMO it's non-trivial project.
>>I think it's well worth the efford (and not that hard). If anybody wants
>>to try, I'd be willing to help (though you may prefer to take the
>>discussion off of this list).
> And what's the point of this exercise? I don't think we should
> introduce yet another tool which even fewer people know how to
> maintain unless the benefits are really dramatic.
someone asked how tests were performed, specifically, whether there's
a way to compare a test's output with some expected string.
You answered that this was currently not possible.
I suggested to look at qmtest, because it provides a flexible way to
define tests (way beyond just comparing stdout).
Then the discussion went on about how hard it would be to hook qmtest
up with your existing build system.
I wouldn't suggest that qmtest is a solution to your testing
requirements in general. I just tried to explain how qmtest is *meant*
to be used in a context like yours.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk