From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-28 01:21:06
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>> Of course not. But I mostly avoid the test library. Its default
>>> behaviors are well-suited to a relatively large investment in
>>> learning, framework, and automation.
>> I don't think it's true. The only real problem is lack of proper
> Without proper documentation it requires at least a large investment
> in learning. And even if the perception that a large investment in
> framework and automation is required is wrong, without proper
> documentation such perceptions will persist.
I agree with all points.
>>> For me, barriers to writing tests have to be extremely low, because
>>> I just have too many other things to think about.
>> I worked very hard on usebility last couple releases. I don't see
>> how it could be done easier for users at the moment.
> I think that job isn't finished yet. I keep hearing from people who
> try to use the test library and are frustrated (I'm sorry, I'm not
> naming my sources).
Could you at least present reasons for their frustration?
>>>> Library developers doesn't need to know anything in most cases. I
>>>> would assume that it's regression tools developer/maintainer
>>>> responsibility in most cases.
>>> Okay; does Boost.Test give the regression tools developer/maintainer
>>> the means to control this option?
>> Yes it does. Using CLA and environment variables. Next release it will
>> support config files either.
> Then we should be able to set the options conditionally in the Boost
> testing framework, to reduce the likelihood of hanging. That's good
That's what I am trying to say is the best solution IMO - set it up in
either tool or testing.jam
>>>> why don't you just set this options for all test automatically in
>>> Because I'm already overwhelmed with other responsibilities, and
>>> don't posess the domain knowledge to do it.
>> I don't mean you personally. I mean Boost.Build developers.
> I think, to the extent to which an interaction with Boost.Test
> behavior causes the problem, the information about how to set the
> options should be maintained with Boost.Test. Also, it should be
> included in the Boost.Test documentation, because Boost won't be the
> only project with the same issues.
Yes this need to be covered in docs.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk