|
|
Boost Testing : |
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-15 10:38:33
Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams writes:
>> Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> OK, I've double-checked this with Misha and he says that he indeed did
>>> understand your use case back then. It fell through the cracks exactly
>>> because of his reservations (expressed in that thread) about providing
>>> this functionality under the star syntax.
>>
>> I don't really care what syntax we use, but I'm beginning to wish very
>> strongly for the functionality under *some* syntax, because of the
>> fact that when I put in the toolsets explicitly:
>>
>> a. The XML file no longer really reflected my intention
>
> If you meant your intention to actually apply the same markup to any
> future failures, I agree, it doesn't.
That's what I mean.
>> b. I had a really hard time being sure that what I was doing made
>> sense.
>
> OK, how would you feel about something like this instead
>
> <test name="interoperable_fail" category="Corner-case tests">
> <mark-failure ignore-unexpected-success="true">
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> <toolset name="*"/>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> <note author="D. Abrahams">
> This failure is caused by a compiler bug. Templated operators
> that combine different iterators built with iterator_facade or
> iterator_adaptor may be present in an overload set even when those
> iterators are not interoperable. The usual result is that error
> messages generated by illegal use of these operators will be of
> lower quality.
> </note>
> </mark-failure>
> </test>
It's much less verbose and fragile, but it doesn't seem to express my
intention either. I don't want to ignore unexpected success. I want
to supply a note that is displayed for a particular test whenever it
fails.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com