[boost] Re: Boost.Test: major update

From: Paul Baxter (pauljbaxter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-11 08:58:55

Hi Gennadiy,

-----------------
From: "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]>
> I would like to take this moment to share with you finally the 
> modifications Boost.Test went through during last couple month. Most of 
> Boost.Test components undergo a major or significant change in both design 
> and implementation. I've strived to keep an interface unchanged as much as 
> possible. The primary goals for this update were:
>  * Make a unit test framework better suited for different 'runners'
>  * Make unit test framework simpler internally by eliminating test cases 
> hierarchy
>  * Make test tools more uniform
>  * Make auto unit test framework as usable as possible
------------------
I'm delighted to see boost test is evolving.

What is the state of revisions to the documentation and test examples as 
personally I am finding it quite hard going to look around the code and 
discover the changes from 1.32 that will make unit testing somewhat simpler. 
I found Noel Lopis' unit test framework discussion document and subsequent 
review/discussion about boost test here to be very useful and am keen to use 
the results of your hard work!

I've looked at the latest CVS and can't find any updated 1.33 document 
release notes (your post here is a good start however.) or other guides to 
new functionality. Given the imminent release of 1.33 do you have plans for 
updating the documentation prior to 1.33? [It may be I simply haven't found 
it yet!]

Given the Test library's importance to Boost and software development in 
general, is this major evolution of the design one that warrants a 
re-review?

In particular, while I understand the need to reduce dependencies on the 
rest of Boost, there seem to be several instances of the creation of largely 
equivalent functionality. Would it be better to leverage the work of others 
and note the dependencies?

Your to-do list sounds interesting as well. The incorporation of performance 
monitoring/profiling sounds very interesting as does the various logging 
library discussions that are going on.