Re: [boost] [test] Looking for co-developer/maintainer

Subject: Re: [boost] [test] Looking for co-developer/maintainer
From: Darryl Green (darryl.green_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-20 06:21:00

On 20 February 2014 05:54, Richard <legalize+jeeves_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> boost_at_[hidden] spake the secret code
> <CADJ=SEMqYFoCaZi9m+MPzu1_n=4QD3Y3Yd1wDH526foFXuxSeA_at_[hidden]> thusly:
>
>>However docs on extending and using the lib beyond basic use cases
>>(eg traversing the tests for producing custom result formats) are much
>>needed.
>
> That's a reasonable request.  However, this information is missing
> from the current documentation, so my version doesn't make things any
> worse.
>

Yes it does. It doesn't even mention or imply that it is possible.
There are hints that you can extend (yes, the docs are not good - but
that is different from missing) for example:

http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_55_0/libs/test/doc/html/utf/user-guide/test-output/results-report.html

> I am curious how many people need this advanced functionality.  If one
> person needs it, then it's lower priority than if a bunch of people
> need it.

Well, as you apparently talk to lots of boost test users - ask them.

All I know is that I needed it and others clearly have otherwise I
wouldn't have found questions and answers including code examples on
the web.
It would be nice to have it in the docs.

traversing the test tree:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8550704/boost-unit-test-list-available-tests

custom log formats:
http://www.eld.leidenuniv.nl/~moene/Home/projects/testdox/boosttest/

But regardless - Are we going to start voting for which public
interfaces of boost libraries should be documented or can we take it
as a given they all should be?

>
>>The docs on how the library works "internally" are needed to be
>>able to use those extension points effectively.
>
> None of this is documented currently.

You have argued quite strongly *against* documenting these features in
this thread.

I am simply pointing out that there is a need for this doc.

I shouldn't really need to say this but :

None of this is a criticism of the documentation work you have done already.

None of it is a criticism of the functionality Gennadiy has coded.

None of it is arguing for anything more than making the existing
functionality (all of it) easier to use by documenting it.