Re: [Boost-users] Boost::Test Samples?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost::Test Samples?
From: Jeffrey Walton (noloader_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-06 17:33:32

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Richard
<legalize+jeeves_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> boost-users_at_[hidden] spake the secret code
> <CAH8yC8mnBo093A-_X5DYTKjBJLFf-45yE4Qq9x=Qae1HOP7Jwg_at_[hidden]> thusly:
>
>>I thought it would be a good idea to look at [sample] projects that
>>work rather than code snippets. Unfortunately, the link for
>>"collection of examples" at [1] is broken.
>
> Perhaps my 5-part tutorial on using boost.test will help.  Part 1 is
> here:
> <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/c-unit-tests-with-boost-test-part-1/>
Thanks Richard. I came across that page when researching "Test setup
error: test tree is empty" during knob turning. I think Part 1 is a
great article, but its Win32 based and I'm working with a Linux
project (I *really* miss Win32 - the tools are so much better).

It would be incredibly helpful if the project offered a few real life
sample of things such as a program (with a `main`), a static archive,
and a DSO (or DLL). Nothing fancy - build a DSO via a makefile with
two source files (A.cpp and B.cpp) and test them (A-test.cpp and
B-test.cpp). In addition, a Visual Studio project to do the same would
help the Win32 folks.

I've heard a lot of great things about Boost, and I am glad it has
worked for some folks. But after a couple of days on and off with
Boost::Test, I'm beginning to wonder if its a good choice for our C++
project.

The Boost::Test library lacks clear and concise documentation (the
online documentation is fractured, lack clarity, is hard to follow,
and has broken links). The library is clearly abusing macros in a C++
library (where are the predicates, functors, and other things I expect
to see from a C++ library? Bjarne would probably chuckle or laugh).
And the missing samples [broken links] are really not forgivable.

Jeff