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@shikadi.net> 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@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users