Re: [Boost-Users] Re: how to create fixtures in unit test framework

--- At Sat, 30 Aug 2003 00:47:01 +0000, Gennadiy E. Rozental wrote:

...

--- At Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:02:51 +0200, Anders Moe wrote:

...

Hi again and thanks for your reply.

If I understand you correctly you suggest using the ctor/dtor in

...

...

class-test-case to do the job of build_up/tear_down. I suppose

--- In Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com, "Duane Murphy" wrote: the that would be

...

...

equivalent to setup/teardown. This works, ofcourse, because a C++ programmer can rely on the dtor being executed, unlike the Java finalizer.

Having worked some with CppUnit, I have wondered similarly.

Did you try to use Boost.Test? Any comparison?

I have not had a chance to try Boost.Test. It's on our list of things to try, but we have a time and code investment in CppUnit already.

...

It's hard to judge when a particular "feature" is put in to work around limitations or differences in the language. When I studied JUnit, I didnt fully grasp the need for setUp and tearDown. This explaination makes some sense.

Do you mean, that in C++ we do not need explicit teardown and buildup?

I need to look at this a little more. setUp and tearDown are called before and after each test. I dont know how this could be simulated with constructors or member variables. Conceptually a fixture establishes a known good test environment for the test independent of all previous tests. That is each unit test should be seperate and independent. setUp and tearDown in Fixtures was designed to establish this environment. I would need to study Boost.Test more to understand how this might be made possible.

...

The equivalent is simply member variables or something similar in C++.

I did not get this. An equivalent to what?

Equivalent to setUp and tearDown. ...Duane