Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Container and tests: why is Boost.Test bypassed
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-02 19:22:17

On 2 Jun 2015 at 23:10, Peter Dimov wrote:

> > I am personally opposed to lightweight test because it does not integrate
> > well with test results aggregation tooling, and therefore should not be
> > used in new code.
> What would it take for lightweight_test to be changed to integrate well?
> I did read your "more explanation" but it didn't answer this question.

I don't consider there to be any need for lightweight_test in new
code when you have a choice between the very capable Boost.Test and
its emulation based on CATCH. One test code can do both on a compile
time switch, or indeed simply use assert.

However, seeing as you ask, I think it was Steven who told me at C++
Now that apparently Boost.Build has the ability to spit out XML for
whether individual test programs pass or fail, and from that I would
imagine a XSLT could generate JUnit XML.

So I guess that facility would just need to be finished and
documented, and you're good to go.


ned Productions Limited Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at