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

Subject: Re: [boost] [test] Looking for co-developer/maintainer
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-29 14:37:48

On 29 May 2014 at 8:29, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

> > <boost/detail/lightweight_test.hpp> is one that several library owners
> > have told me that they use instead of Boost.Test because B.T. kept
> > breaking their builds and the documentation was not usable.
> 
> Boost.Test does not change for many many years now

This is untrue. Here is an example of a recent Boost.Test change 
induced break: Note the #ifdef testing Boost.Test version:

https://github.com/BoostGSoC13/boost.afio/blob/master/libs/afio/test/t
est_functions.hpp#L160

Note the fact we need this at all is because Boost.Test won't timeout 
tests in a sane way (or at all on Windows), so we reimplement the 
functionality such that it actually works. I never got round to 
reporting this on the bug tracker, apologies.

> > >* No one ever expressed a problem with Boost.Test being slow
> > 
> > Quite a bunch of people expressed frustration with the compile time at
> > the C++ Now! 2014 workshop.
> 
> Do you have any numbers? How many seconds does it take to build Boost.Test 
> shared library based test module vs. one built using other alternatives?

Boost.Test should default to not being header only. It's the only 
library in Boost I feel that way about. There is no good reason for a 
full fat unit test library to be header only.

AFIO forces library only Boost.Test, and we saw a very dramatic 
improvement in CI turnaround times. A huge win.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/