Re: [Boost-users] [Boost.Test] reporting tests with warnings

19 Nov 2011

      AMDG

On 11/18/2011 04:27 PM, Richard wrote:
...
[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
boost-users@lists.boost.org spake the secret code
 thusly:
...
Richard  writes:
...
If you keep executing a test case
that's already failed, it is highly likely in C++ that the test
runner will simply crash.
This is simply not true.
So if I do something like:
BOOST_CHECK(p);
BOOST_CHECK(p->accessor());
and p is a null pointer, what good does it do to continue after the
first failed check?  The pointer is null and anything else that is
checked after that is useless.
In this case BOOST_REQUIRE is appropriate,
but not all tests are like this.  For
example, with

BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(test_f)
{
    BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(f(0), 0);
    BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(f(1), 1);
    BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(f(2), 1);
    BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(f(6), 8);
    BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(f(15), 610);
    BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(f(47), 2971215073);
}

BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(test_C)
{
    C c1(1, 2);
    C c2(3, 4);
    C c3 = c1 * c2;

    BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(c3.real(), -5);
    BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(c3.imag(), 10);
}

It's safe to continue executing even
after a failure and I would want to
continue, especially in the second case.
I can't speak for anyone else, but
the tests that I write tend to look
a lot like this.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe