Re: [boost] doctest - the lightest feature rich C++ single header testing framework - if it can enter boost and if it/boost will benefit from that

Subject: Re: [boost] doctest - the lightest feature rich C++ single header testing framework - if it can enter boost and if it/boost will benefit from that
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-22 14:01:17

Viktor Kirilov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I just released doctest - https://github.com/onqtam/doctest
> All the info about it can be found on github.

This looks pretty cool. As does your Github name, for that matter. :-)

> So do you think it can enter the boost project? How much work will it take 
> to get it into boost except for adding boost in the title?

You should check

http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html

and then request a formal review.

Per guidelines alone, what you'll probably be requested to do would be to 
rename the macros to use a BOOST_ prefix - so perhaps something like 
BOOST_DT_CASE, BOOST_DT_SUBCASE, BOOST_DT_CHECK - and put the header (with 
an extension .hpp) in include/boost.

You should also support testing via Boost.Build, and perhaps add test cases 
for your internal helper classes (String, Vector, and so on.)

The single header organization is an interesting question. I know why it's 
done - it's indeed useful to be able to grab a single header, put it into 
the project and be done with it. On the other hand, once your library is in 
Boost, most people will get it via a channel (a Boost release or apt-get) 
that makes its whole contents available anyway. So perhaps splitting the 
header for readability reasons could be of value. You could no longer need 
BOOST_DOCTEST_IMPLEMENT then, for instance, if the implementation is in a 
separate header, the helper classes could live in their own headers, and so 
on, which would perhaps look a bit tidier.