Re: [boost] Re: 1.31.0 regressions

From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-12 12:35:13

Beman Dawes wrote:

> I don't think smaller tests is a good idea. I'm asking for "more 
> comprehensive" tests.
> 
> Say a library now covers 100 test cases spread out among five test 
> programs. I'd like to see those five programs refactored into one 
> program, still covering the 100 test cases. Or even adding more test 
> cases. A single program would cut the overhead, including the human 
> overhead.

There are at least three drawbacks to this approach:

1. "something is wrong" is all the information you get from
    a failing test. Esp. you'll likely see only one of several
    problems related to a failing test program. The next
    problem will only become visible after the first problem
    has been fixed.

2. Some tests are known to fail for certain compilers.
    If those tests are joined with other tests then we'll
    lose information about these other tests.

3. Compile time may become very large for large test
    programs or heavy template usage. E.g. in one case,
    we had to split a test into three (Spirit's switch_p
    tests) in order to make testing feasible.

Regards,
m