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 Ã 16:12, Vinnie Falco via Boost a Ã©crit :
>> 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
> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk