Re: [Boost-users] Interest in a C++20 Unit Testing Framework?

From: Krzysztof Jusiak (krzysztof_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-23 15:59:35

I wasn't even trying to imply that [Boost].UT should go to the standard
(it's not even a boost library ;) but, as stated, I believe there are
benefits of having things in the standard and I, personally, think that C++
would benefit from having some basic testing primitives but, as always
there are pros and cons to literally anything.

On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 8:43 AM Mateusz Loskot via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 at 16:17, Krzysztof Jusiak via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > So again what is the benefit of standardization?
> >
> > IMHO, there is always a benefit of standardization best/common
> > practices because
>
>
> Good, then the documentation, in the motivation section, could/should
> answer:
>    What are the best practices the UT captures?
> in comparison to popular existing frameworks,
> which do not necessarily use the best practices.
>
> My take on the main points listed in the
> https://github.com/boost-experimental/ut/blob/master/README.md#overview,
>
> - no dependencies - it's a convenience, not best practice
>
> - single header - header-only libraries are sometimes it is a convenience,
>   sometimes a necessity, sometimes a matter of personal preference or
> choice,
>   but header-only is not a best practice.
>
> - macro-free - generally, this is best practice; specifically, it
> depends. As Vinnie
>   pointed out, macros (polluting global namespace) in test frameworks are
> not
>   a troublemaker, so in case of UT this is a weak argument.
>
> - easy to use - yes, this is a universal best practice.
>
> - minimal API - well, most test framework I've seen or used allow users
>   to get the job done using 2-3 macros e.g. using Catch2 you need to
> learn just two.
>   2-5 macros is minimal API.
>
> - fast to compile - Can this be called a best practice? Well, it
> certainly is a nirvana to aim for
>   but in real case, it depends. Boost.MP11 compiles faster than Boost.MPL
>   but some projects have no choice than to use MPL.
>
> If the UT aims for an ideal of standardization proposable library,
> then it (documentation) needs to make the best practices more vivid.
>
> I do like your library. It is a very interesting experiment, a very good
> piece of code to read and learn from about C++20 features.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>