Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-12 13:07:23

Martin Wille <mw8329_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

I agree. We already have another example of such a problem in the
random library test. What contortions do we have to do in order to
get that test refactored? How hard can it be?

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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