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

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Container and tests: why is Boost.Test bypassed
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-03 06:16:18

2015-06-03 0:02 GMT+02:00 Gennadiy Rozental <rogeeff_at_[hidden]>:

> Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Those test were inherited from Boost.Interprocess and when trying
> > Boost.Test back in 2005 I found it too heavyweight for the kind of tests
> > I needed, specially when using the debugger. It could an old problem
> > with my IDE installation but I never looked back.
> >
> > After some years I've slowly started porting some tests from my
> > libraries (maybe not Container, I can't remember) to Core's
> > lightweight_test which I is dependecy-free, fast and enough for most
> needs:
> >
> > http://www.boost.org/boost/core/lightweight_test.hpp
>
> Not to bead the dead horse, but I'll continue to object to any unqualified
> statements about this misconception that this header is any more
> lightweight than Boost.Test.
>
> Consider this example:
>
> #include <boost/core/lightweight_test.hpp>
>
> int main()
> {
>   int object1 = 1;
>   int object2 = 2;
>
>   boost::swap(object1,object2);
>
>   BOOST_TEST(object1 == 2);
>   BOOST_TEST(object2 == 1);
>
>   return boost::report_errors();
> }
>
> and compare with Boost.Test version:
>
> #define BOOST_TEST_MODULE my test
> #include <boost/test/included/unit_test.hpp>
>
> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(trivial_swap)
> {
>   int object1 = 1;
>   int object2 = 2;
>
>   boost::swap(object1,object2);
>
>   BOOST_TEST(object1 == 2);
>   BOOST_TEST(object2 == 1);
> }
>
> As you can see Boost.Test version is at least as simple. On majority of
> modern hardware it takes as much time to build. And I am not even going to
> list all the other advantages (better log and report and so on) Boost.Test
> version has.
>
> Furthermore, most developer do need at least some form of test
> organization. See for example boost sources where lightweight_test.hpp is
> used. You will find many cases that look like this:
>
> ....
>
> int main()
> {
>     test<1>();
>     test<2>();
>     test<4>();
>     test<8>();
>     test<16>();
>     test<32>();
>     test<64>();
>     test<128>();
>
>     return boost::report_errors();
> }
>
> OR
>
> ...
>
> int main()
> {
>     test_integral();
>     test_floating_point();
>     test_nullptr_t();
>     test_pointer();
>     test_member_pointer();
>     test_enum();
>     test_class();
>
>     return boost::report_errors();
> }
>
> Boost.Test based test modules would have look simpler in these cases,
> provide better error attribution and many many more other thing.
>
> You are free to use anything for your unit test, but if you are making
> claims please back them up.

Just note that Boost.Test v3 for the moment is not an option when testing
in branch master. Luckily, it is going to be, soon.

Regards,
&rzej