Re: [boost] [test] Not using Boost.Test for an official Boost library

Subject: Re: [boost] [test] Not using Boost.Test for an official Boost library
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-22 05:46:43

It's not mandatory to use Boost.Test but it's widely understood and generally effective and suitable.

A lack of enthusiasm built up because of various bugs in Boost.Test that were not resolved as quickly as many would have liked.

However, it is now quite stable, actively maintained and has new and much improved documentation, so you can use it with confidence.

Using Boost static_assert does not conflict with using Boost.Test and is usually worthwhile protection against abuse by users.

To use the invaluable Boost suite of testers, allowing users to see in fine detail what works on what platforms, you will need to use b2/bjam, providing jamfile for the /test folder (and ideally also for /example folder).

(Aside: I note that there are many libraries that does not provide a jamfile to allow users to run all the examples quickly and easily.  I'd like to see this done for all libraries.)

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
> Sent: 21 March 2016 19:47
> To: Boost
> Subject: [boost] [test] Not using Boost.Test for an official Boost library
> 
> Hi list,
> 
> I'd like to know if it's mandatory to use Boost.Test if you intend to
> contribute a library to Boost.
> 
> After facing an issue trying to enable compiler santizers on my tests[1]
> for long enough, I'd like to use a different test library.
> 
> According to a survey done by Niall concerning new libs[2], everybody
> avoids Boost.Test, favouring assert/static_assert.
> 
> I've been interested in using Catch[3], which is header-only and can be
> embedded, posing no problem to users (it'd be transparent). I've seen
> Boost.AFIO (which is not an official Boost library) already uses it.
> 
> I've seen lightweight_test is also used within Boost[4].
> 
> If Boost.Test ever fix its integration problem with compiler sanitizers[1],
> I'd have no problem migrating everything back again to Boost.Test. However,
> it's more important for me to have this issue solved now so I can jump to
> the next task (valgrind and fuzz testing).
> 
> I've also seen that some header-only libraries use a different build system
> for the test target[5] and using a header-only test library would be a
> lesser demand that should be okay.
> 
> [1] https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/11425
> [2]
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/boostcon/cppnow_presentations_2015/master/files/A-review-of-Cxx-11-14-only-
> Boost-libraries-Fiber-AFIO-DI-and-APIBind.pdf
> [3] https://github.com/philsquared/Catch
> [4]
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_60_0/libs/core/doc/html/core/lightweight_test.html
> [5]
> https://github.com/boostorg/hana/blob/63c5f87dfdadd07e496cefefc63c3ea9968d3140/CMakeLists.txt#L159
> 
> --
> Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
> https://vinipsmaker.github.io/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost