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 http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk