Re: [boost] [boost/detail/lightweight_test.hpp] Can we make it lesserror-prone?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-25 14:00:34

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Being the conservative I am, 

...and that I value...

> I'd like to keep the current way operational without altering the
> behavior of the tests that are written correctly and do work.

Of course; I intended that.

> The automatic reporting outlined above always leads to abnormal termination 
> when there are errors; I don't like this. The alternative that just 
> terminates when report_errors hasn't been called seems workable.

Sorry, I must've left out a little.  I had assumed that
report_errors() reset the error count to zero, so when the singleton
got destroyed it would only abort if there were unreported errors.

> One consequence of the minimal interface of lightweight_test.hpp is
> that main(), including its 'return' statement, is completely under
> the control of the user.

Yeah, I know.  That's a liability when it comes to the mistake I'm
describing.

> It would probably be possible to make it slightly less lightweight
> and error prone by defining a BOOST_TEST_CASE macro and requiring a
> main() of the form
>
> int main()
> {
>     return boost::run_test_cases();
> }

Yes, but that would not help catch errors in existing uses of the
facility.

> Well, the current way has worked for me so far. :-) 

You, maybe, but several others made mistakes.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com