Re: [boost] CMake and Boost Build tests

Subject: Re: [boost] CMake and Boost Build tests
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-27 03:03:41

On 7/26/2017 4:48 PM, Roger Leigh via Boost wrote:
> On 26/07/17 21:28, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
>> On 7/26/2017 3:33 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>>> On 7/26/17 11:49 AM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
> 
>>> I couldn't make the compile-fail and run-fail targets to work so I 
>>> just removed them from the cmake test suite.  So if your thinking 
>>> that CMake has a ways to go to be able to offer what we expect, 
>>> you're right.
>>
>> So you are saying that you cannot run a unit test with CMake that is 
>> meant to show a failure. Wow, what a brilliant system !
> 
> ctest itself treats a nonzero return as failure.  It's pretty trivial to 
> run a wrapper to invert the status for expected failures, and customise 
> the test running in any way you see fit.  See the EXPECT_FAIL lines in
> 
> https://github.com/apache/xerces-c/blob/f7654ee16b1dc2fb6e2b68777895c5384cd51c28/tests/CMakeLists.txt#L176 
> 
> 
> and the wrapper logic in
> 
> https://github.com/apache/xerces-c/blob/f7654ee16b1dc2fb6e2b68777895c5384cd51c28/cmake/RunTest.cmake#L45 
> 
> 
> as one way to do this.

That is just applicable to a run test. Current Boost Build also has 
compile and link tests, although I will admit I have never found uses 
for the link test. But in the compile test, only whether a compile is 
successful or not is measured, while the run test does follow CTest 
treating a nonzero return as failure. But is CTest really applicable as 
a CMake alternative to Boost testing as it now exists under Boost Build 
? The documentation for CTest does not explain what it actually does 
amidst it enumeration of a trillion or so command line options, but why 
should it do that, right ?

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Roger