Re: [boost] Re: 1.31.0 regressions

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-12 19:33:36

At 12:35 PM 2/12/2004, Martin Wille wrote:
 >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.

That's only correct for new, immature code. Many Boost libraries are now 
mature. They pass all tests, except in exceptional circumstances.

 >
 >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.

Most compilers are now passing close to 100% of all tests. Hopefully, with 
the next round of compiler updates, they will be passing every test. 
Granularity on 100% passes brings no benefits.

 >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.

It is hard to know the overall effect without accurate timings. My personal 
belief is that on average the total time will drop. But we need timings to 
know for sure.

--Beman