Re: [boost] [filesystem][program_options][serialization][test]fromcomp.lang.c++.moderated

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-28 14:08:15

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:uzmh2488y.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>>>> 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?
>
> For example:
>
>  anonymous: why do i need a separate .lib?

It's optional. You could always use "included" variant.

>  anonymous: <sigh>

?

>  anonymous: my needs are very simple
>  anonymous: boost.test is too complicated

This is not a reason. This this an outcome. What is complicated?

>  anonymous: the minimal test framework met my needs

Unit Test Framework does the same with smaller typing:

#include <boost/test/minimal.hpp>

int
test_main( int /*argc*/, char* /*argv*/[] )
{
    int i = 1;

    BOOST_CHECK( i == 1 );

    return 0;
}

vs.

#define BOOST_TEST_MODULE my_test
#include <boost/test/included/unit_test.hpp>

BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( test_main )
{
    int i = 1;

    BOOST_CHECK( i == 1 );
}

So this point is invalid here IMO.

>> That's what I am trying to say is the best solution IMO - set it up in
>> either tool or testing.jam
>
> Great, but...
>
>>> 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.
>
> ...given that fact, it seems obvious to me that the test library
> maintainer should take responsibility for maintaining that setting in
> the build/test framework.

Unfortunately I don't know Boost Build enough to be able to do this.

Gennadiy