Re: [boost] Best Practices for Surviving the Boost Test Gauntlet?

Subject: Re: [boost] Best Practices for Surviving the Boost Test Gauntlet?
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-09 22:01:59

On 8/9/2017 5:34 PM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Raffi Enficiaud via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Le 08.08.17 à 16:12, Vinnie Falco via Boost a écrit :
>> It seems that you redeveloped a testing framework, and this is causing some
>> of the issues we can read there.
> 
> Is there a link to the evidence of this so that I can come up with a fix?
> 
>> I do not know how important is this internal framework to you, but you may
>> go for another test framework and focus on the added value of your library
>> instead.
> 
> Changing test frameworks means refactoring all the tests - I'm sure
> you can understand why I might be reluctant to do that right now.

It is understandable but Boost comes with two testing frameworks 
built-in. There is Boost Test, which Raffi Enficiaud mentions and is 
pretty full-featured, and there is also Boost's lightweight_test.hpp, 
which I have found adequate for testing vmd and tti. It is always easier 
using what is already available, if it has the testing facilities you 
need, than to create your own.

> 
> Thanks