Re: [Boost-users] Boost.Test with a static library

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost.Test with a static library
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-21 21:07:13

Ken Smith <kgsmith <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Gennadiy Rozental <rogeeff <at> gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Ken Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Moritz Beber
> >> <moritz.beber <at> googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello everyone,
> >>> after prying for any hints in the documentation and reading frustrating
> >>> mails in the archives for a while now, I get the feeling that this is a
> >>> very confusing topic.
> >>> My aim is to use a static library of boost.test because I need to
> >>> compile it a lot and the waiting time when using the header is just
> >>> frustrating.
> >>
> >> I felt the same way until I switched to using the minimal test suite.
> >
> > I would be interested to know why.
> 
> The builds simply took much longer with
> boost/test/included/unit_test.hpp and I wanted to do the least amount
> of fiddling with my build to use this package.

How much longer it takes? In my experience on modern PC/Linux box the difference
almost negligible.

How difficult would it be to spend 10 min once and build the static library?
In that case compilation time should b even better than minimal.hpp.

IMO advantages way overweight, even if you do not need any advanced features
immediately. Give it a shoot - you may find it useful.

> I'm sad to hear the
> minimal test framework is not recommended as it was working just fine
> for me so far.

You are free to use it. It's not going anywhere. But from almost any standpoint
you may find UTF better
 
> Basically, I wanted to figure out how to do the least
> amount of work to implement unit testing so my colleages would push
> back as little as possible when I recommended they use it.  More
> testing is better testing regardless of the mechanism.

With UTF you can get more from the testing.

Gennadiy