Re: [boost] Boost.Container and tests: why is Boost.Test bypassed

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.

Niall

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