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: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-23 04:57:29

2016-05-23 5:26 GMT+02:00 Gavin Lambert <gavinl_at_[hidden]>:

> On 23/05/2016 14:29, Vinnie Falco wrote:
>
>> I'm reading this thread about doctest and I checked out the library.
>> The first thing I noticed was macros and odd syntax. For example:
>>
>>      TEST_CASE("testing the factorial function") {
>>         CHECK(factorial(1) == 1);
>>         CHECK(factorial(2) == 2);
>>         CHECK(factorial(10) == 3628800);
>>      }
>>
>> This looks like non-standard C++ and heavy on macros which turned me
>> off to Boost.Test for the same reasons. I considered using Boost.Test
>> for yet another library I am about to release and I gave up when I saw
>> the baffling use of macros.
>>
>
> Generally macros are used for assertions because you want to include
> __LINE__ (and typically also __FILE__) in the assertion failure so that you
> can find *which* assertion failed (often the condition alone is not
> sufficiently unambiguous), and there isn't really any better way to get
> those AFAIK. (Sometimes it's possible to extract the failure location from
> a thrown exception, but this is highly compiler-dependent and non-standard
> -- and you're not interested in that specific point, but in one of its
> callers.)
>

Another reason is that you can can catch an exception thrown from an
expression you are testing, and report it uniformly along other test
failures.

Regards,
&rzej