Re: [boost] Re: boost.test covered in testing frameworks rundown

From: Noel Llopis (nll_pub_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-11 20:38:21

On Tuesday 11 January 2005 16:32, Beman Dawes wrote:
> I beg to differ. Having to supply all that boilerplate would be a huge
> disincentive. 

If that functionality were exposed separately, putting it together in one 
macro with all the options you want to would be absolutely trivial. Then 
all you would write is 

BOOST_TEST_MY_MAIN

And if that's not good enough, then you get your hands dirty and write main.

> If Gennadiy can provide addition functionality making it easier for those
> needing more startup/shutdown control, great. But it shouldn't come at
> any cost to those who don't need that functionality.

>From my point of view, it's more important to provide that functionality 
than to keep the ease of use. Otherwise it might simply come a time that 
you can't use it (combining it with another library that also provides its 
own custom main). Fortunately, once that functionality is provided, 
wrapping it in your own macro with the exact options you want is quite 
trivial.

The more I think about it though, the more I see that the problem lies in 
the fact that Boost.Test is trying to do double-duty. On one hand, it's a 
unit-test framework to efficiently create and run unit tests. On the other 
hand, it's a part of the Boost.Test library, and tries to conform to 
certain outputs and command-line arguments, and that's why main is tightly 
controlled.

Those two aspects should really be separated. The Boost.Test component can 
provide a main function that parses the command-line in a certain way, and 
calls the unit test framework accordingly. But people should also be free 
to use the unit test framework without being tied to that.

For example, I might want to set different options (like what log to use) 
based on a command-line parameter, or set exception-handling on/off based 
on whether the debugger is present.

Another way of separating those two aspects would be simply to create 
another library with what's right now in test_main.cpp. If you link to that 
library, you get the standard main. Otherwise you need to provide your own.

Does that make sense?

--Noel
Games from Within
http://www.gamesfromwithin.com