"Dave Steffen"
Robert Mathews writes: [...]
- "expected failure" feature
Cheers, Rob.
Expected failures look like failed unit tests where the number of failed assertions is _less_ than expected. I use a Perl script to look for this sort of thing. Personally, I'd be inclined not to call these "failures", but that's just me.
But, how would you know in a generic way that the number of failed assertions is _less_ than expected? I'd like a facility whereby I could ask the .exe that question.
I've found that Perl (or whatever) scripts to grab the output of test suites and do something reasonable with it are necessary. I suspect that I haven't really grokked the _intent_ behind the unit test library.
Funny you would say that ... I currently work in test harness infrastructure of some 4000 tests written in perl. I'm looking at the boost tests stuff from the POV of having more unit-level tests for the individual libraries (most of the current stuff tests how the system works at an application level, and thus regression in individual libraries tend to show up as incredibly obscure issues, if they show up at all!). I'd like to have those tests be written in C++/STL/Boost (I'm really really sick of Perl) . Still, reality is, I'd probably wrap this boost.test unit test programs in a standard perl wrapper so that it would fit into our current distributed test harness infrastructure. To do this, I need a way query the test program about what tests it might run if asked, and a way to pass configuration to those tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Steffen, Ph.D. "Irrationality is the square root of all evil" Numerica Corporation -- Douglas Hofstadter Software Engineer IV "Oppernockity tunes but once." -- anon.