Re: [boost] [test] --catch_system_errors=no doesn't work withminimaltest

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-01 11:27:04

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:uu0ew8rxm.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> When using boost/test/minimal.hpp, it doesn't respond to the presence
>>> of --catch_system_errors=no, which makes it unreasonably difficult to
>>> debug problems on Windows.  All I get is an exception caught by the
>>> test library, with all of the info about the real cause of the error
>>> lost, which is absolutely unhelpful.  It seems to me that the minimal
>>> configuration ought to at least be useful for writing and debugging
>>> simple test cases.
>>
>> Minimal testing facility doesn't process any CLA.
>
> http://boost.org/libs/test/doc/usage/command_line.html and
> http://boost.org/libs/test/doc/usage/msvc_net.html#t2 don't make that
> clear.

Minimal testing facility is in many sences "crippled" relative to te rest of 
Boost.Test components. There is a separate chapter covering it and the rest 
of docs doesn't have anything to do with it. If you think it worth the 
effort I could explicetly specify in all places: "Is not applicable ot 
Minimal Testing facility"

> BTW, "CLA" is not a universally understood abbreviation.
> (http://boost.org/libs/test/doc/open_issues.html)

It's quite frequently used. But I could unabbreviate in docs.

>> Execution monitor by default catches all the errors (which I think
>> reasonable default).
>
> I'm not sure it is.  It seems to me that Boost.Test has two uses:
>
>  1) for writing effective unit and regression tests
>  2) for writing "resilient" software
>
> Given its name, I think (1) should be emphasized, but I think the
> "catches all errors" behavior is more appropriate to (2).

I guess it's a matter of personal preferense either. I nmany cases I don't 
need core to fix an error anonced with "fatal error" message. And if do need 
I could always specify extra parameter. On the other hand regression tests 
runners never need this. And I wouldn't want to force them to add this 
parameter always. IOW I think we need more compeling reason to change a 
default.

Gennadiy