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
> 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 www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk