Re: [Boost-users] [test] Is standalone use possible?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [test] Is standalone use possible?
From: Gerald Wiltse (jerrywiltse_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-02 03:47:14

Hi Adam,

I'm fairly new to the list so take my response with a grain of salt.  I
think you're facing a common challenge with the release strategy of just
releasing tarballs for your library and having users compile themselves.
When your user base is responsible for acquiring and compiling each of your
project's dependencies for themselves, each layer of dependency adds
significant complexity to the use of your project.  Swapping out for
header-only libs, particularly great ones like catch can improve the
situation a lot, but I think the fundamental problem is inherent to your
current delivery strategy.  So, perhaps give that some additional thought.

Gerald R. Wiltse
jerrywiltse_at_[hidden]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Adam Nielsen via Boost-users <
boost-users_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> > > Interesting.  I don't think it will be practical for this codebase
> > > though, as I'd have to rewrite all the tests.  I'm using Boost.Test's
> > > manual test registration (instead of the macros) because my tests all
> > > inherit from a base class which provides the tests, with the child
> > > classes loading different file format handlers and then running the
> > > base class tests against them.  It doesn't look like Catch can handle
> > > this sort of thing without preprocessor hacks, so it'd probably end up
> > > being a huge rewrite.
> >
> > It's pretty straightforward to refactor that design to not rely so
> > heavily on Boost.Test. But if you don't want to, Google Test offers
> > almost exactly the same facility. A port to that ought to be very
> > straightforward for the above design.
>
> It's not that I don't want to, it's just that I see it taking much more
> time than I really want to invest.  Extracting Boost.Test (if it can be
> done in less than 29 MB of source files!) is definitely the easier
> option.
>
> Google Test looks like it's also a library you need to install first,
> so I'd end up in much the same place as I am now, having to worry about
> installing dependencies first.  I like the idea with Catch that it's
> header only so you don't have to worry about any of that.
>
> If I was writing things from scratch I'd be seriously looking at Catch
> though!
>
> Cheers,
> Adam.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>