From: Dave Steffen (dgsteffen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-13 17:25:23
Gennadiy Rozental writes:
> "Dave Steffen" <dgsteffen_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > The issue is "expected failures".
> > Expected failures are specified at the test case level, e.g.
> > BOOST_TEST_CASE( test_case_name, expected failures )
> If you are using "auto" facility it's done like this:
> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_EXPECTED_FAILURES( my_test1, 1 )
> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( my_test1 )
> > So, one could have a test case with, say, four assertions
> > (a.k.a. BOOST_CHECK), and specify that you expect two to fail. Fine.
> > How do you know if the two that failed were the two you expected to
> > fail?
> Yep. That's the reason expected failures usage should be
Well, yes. In fact, I'm curious about your use cases for expected
failures. What do you think it means for a failure to be expected?
> Note though that if number of failures os less than expected it's
> also treated as error.
Yes, right, absolutely.
> > One solution is "don't do that": have only one assertion per test
> > case. We find that to be extremely cumbersome; if it take 20
> > lines of code to set up an object and put it into a given state,
> > we'd have to duplicate those 20 lines of code across multiple
> > test cases (or, alternately, extract them into a helper function,
> > which is annoying and not always possible).
> Fixture is your friend
[ ... snip example ... ]
Hey, that's nifty. :-)
> P.S. You will need 1.34 RC for above example to work I believe.
Ah... we're in the process of moving to 1.33.1 right now. (We have
to do regression tests, etc.) We'll go to 1.34 when it comes out,
unless it's seriously delayed... hmm... [comments snipped] :-)
Dave Steffen, Ph.D. Disobey this command!
Software Engineer IV - Douglas Hofstadter
dg_at_steffen a_at_t numerica d_at_ot us (remove @'s to email me)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk