Re: [Boost-users] [Boost.UTF] Suggestion - test tracking

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Boost.UTF] Suggestion - test tracking
From: John B. Turpish (jbturp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-07 17:54:51

You could also try to handle this with a dedicated code coverage tool.
I'm using lcov for similar purposes.

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Adam Nielsen <a.nielsen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a suggestion for the Boost unit-test library.  If this is already
> possible and I've just missed it, please let me know.
>
> It would be nice if there was a sure-fire way to guarantee certain parts of
> the code were being tested.  For example an if/else statement would ideally
> have tests that cover both execution paths, but at the moment this relies on
> coding the tests correctly.  It's possible to make a mistake in the test and
> cause it to succeed without actually testing the code in question, and because
> the test succeeds you may never notice.
>
> Would it be possible to have something like a BOOST_TESTED_BY macro, which
> causes the named test to fail if it completes without running that line?  (As
> well as documenting where that part of the code is tested.)  For example:
>
>  if (condition) {
>    BOOST_TESTED_BY(my_test);
>  } else {
>    BOOST_TESTED_BY(my_other_test);
>  }
>
>  BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(my_test)
>  {
>    // This test fails if BOOST_TESTED_BY(my_test) doesn't run
>  }
>
> Of course this is a simplified example, you'd probably want counts and things
> as well, but I thought it might be a useful addition to the test framework
> (assuming it can't be done already!)
>
> Thanks,
> Adam.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>