Re: [jamboost] Re: rule unit-test unknown...

From: Brian Riis (brian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-17 13:32:18

Karla & Malcolm Cifuentes wrote:
> I think you need to use this line in your Jamfile
> import testing ;
> 
> If you read tools/testing.jam you get
> "
> # For historical reason, a 'unit-test' rule is available which
> # has the same syntax as 'exe' and behaves just like 'run'.
> "
> 
> Not really sure what history is behind this comment, implies run is
> prefered though.
> 
> Would be nice if some one else could explain why you would ever use run
> as opposed to unit-test.

Well, now you pointed me in the right direction, I took a look at those 
rules, and run is quite different from unit-test in invocation. This 
actually means that run is more powerful, since you can pass arguments 
to the command to run. For simple unit tests that require no arguments 
and simply indicate success or failure by return code unit-test is 
simpler to use.

> 
> Good luck
> mal

Thanks! It works!

-- 
/Brian Riis