Re: [Boost-users] [test] Passing parameters to fixtures

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [test] Passing parameters to fixtures
From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-15 11:17:58

Ovanes Markarian wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Markus Schöpflin <
> markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> Ovanes Markarian wrote:
>>
>>  I guess I forgot to mention that I need to configure the fixture at
>>>> runtime. The DB name (which is actually a connection string) is passed to
>>>> the test as a command line parameter.
>>>>
>>>>  Just implement in your fixture a protected member called
>>> init_db(string_type
>>> const& db_name);
>>>
>>> This member can be called from the suite's body, since AFAIK it derives
>>> from
>>> it.
>>>
>> But hasn't the fixture already been constructed then? So using the
>> constructor of the fixture for setting up the DB connection will not be
>> possible. Or did I get you wrong?
>>
> Yes, but who said, that you must use the constructor for connection
> initialization? You can also go another way and have you suite without
> fixture specification, but initialize the fixture in the first line of your
> suite:
> 
> BOOST_TEST_....()
> {
>    Fixture f(pass the name of db connection);
> }

Wouldn't this be a test case instead of a test suite? I need to share the 
fixture across multiple test cases, so I need the fixture to live at suite 
level.

Anyway, the Boost.Test documentation suggests that fixture setup should be 
done in the constructor, and teardown in the destructor, so IMHO it would 
be the logical place for this kind of work.

As it looks now, using a fixture (which seems to be the recommended way 
now) doesn't allow me the same level of control as deriving from test_suite 
and setting up the fixture there (which has been the recommended way in the 
past).

And I don't see a way how one would integrate a runtime parametrized 
fixture into the BOOST_AUTO_TEST_... framework with the current API.

As long as deriving from test_suite still works, I'm fine with that. But as 
this approach is no longer documented, I am a bit worried that it will no 
longer work in a future version of Boost.Test.

Thanks,
Markus