Re: [boost] Boost.Tests: Unit test defines own main() function, why?

From: Ilya Sokolov (fal_delivery_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-21 04:35:09

Sorry for breaking into discussion but I have a bunch of related questions.

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> "Jens Seidel" <jensseidel_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
[snip]
> Because BOOST_TEST_MAIN produces both function main and empty init function. 
> It's assumed that test units are automatically registered.

Why both? Also, why defining BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK switches on 
BOOST_TEST_ALTERNATIVE_INIT_API?

Suppose I need to perform some initialization call, e.g. 
boost::filesystem::initial_path(). Currently, with shared Boost.Test I 
am forced to not to define BOOST_TEST_MAIN and to copy/paste the main() 
function like this:

int BOOST_TEST_CALL_DECL main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
     return boost::unit_test::unit_test_main(&init_unit_test, argc, argv);
}

Now if I want to support using static Boost.Test, I am forced to define 
BOOST_TEST_ALTERNATIVE_INIT_API.

>> I thought I have also seen a conflict with my own init_unit_test_suite()
>> implementation if I define BOOST_TEST_MAIN but cannot reproduce it.
> 
> There would be a compile time error if you follow proper signature of init 
> function for use with shared library.
> 
>> A question: Would it be save to define BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK also for static
>> linkage?
> 
> No.
> 
>> I hope so as I have never, really never used different code depending on 
>> linker options.
> 
> We have to be tollerant to guest from other continents. Our policies 
> selected to work the same way for every one.
> 
>> Even after renaming my main
>> test_suite* init_unit_test_suite(int, char *[])
>> function into
>> bool init_unit_test()
>> (but only for dynamic linkage?) as noticed on
>> http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/user-guide/initialization.html
>> I fail as usual.
> 
> You should see compilation errors now.
> 
>> Short: In the past it was so simple:
>>
>> #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp>
>> using boost::unit_test::test_suite;
>> test_suite* init_unit_test_suite(int, char *[])
>> {
>>   test_suite *test = BOOST_TEST_SUITE("Master test suite");
>>   test->add(BOOST_TEST_CASE(&JacobiTest1));
>>   return test;
>> }
>>
>> Now I use
>>
>> * Additional autoconf code to define HAVE_UNIT_TEST_LIB if the (shared?) 
>> library is
>>  used.
>>
>> #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
>> #include <config.h> // HAVE_UNIT_TEST_LIB
>> #endif
>>
>> #ifdef HAVE_UNIT_TEST_LIB
>> #  define BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK
>> #  include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp>
>> #else
>> #  include <boost/test/included/unit_test.hpp>
>> #endif
> 
> 1. You can use static library and no need to define BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK for 
> either library of included variant
> 2. You can use included variant always
> 3. You can switch to automated registration and you don't need to define nor 
> function main(), nor init function
> 
>> using boost::unit_test::test_suite;
>>
>> bool init_unit_test()
>> {
>>  // my old init_unit_test_suite code
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> {
>>  init_unit_test_suite(argc, argv);
>>  return 0;
>> }
>> */
> 
> If you insist on combination of manual registration with shared library, it 
> should look like this:
> 
> int
> main( int argc, char* argv[] )
> {
>     return ::boost::unit_test::unit_test_main( &init_unit_test, argc, 
> argv );
> }
> 
> 
>> the required information is wrong and incomplete and addionally
> 
> What is wrong?
> 
>> scattered across multiple pages such as
>> http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/compilation.html
>> http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/compilation/direct-include.html
>> http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/user-guide/usage-variants.html
>> (and all referenced sub pages)
>> http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/user-guide/test-runners.html
>> http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/user-guide/initialization.html
> 
> If you can express it all better I am open to sugestions. It is indeed not 
> very trivial (considering many different usage variant of Boost.Test) to 
> describe all necessary information and be both complete and easily 
> accessible to first timers.
> 
>> To show you that I really read (at least up to UTF) the documenation I 
>> mention
>> a few errors in it:
> 
> I'll look on these later.
> 
> Thanks for the comments
> 
> Gennadiy
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>