Brian Allison
I only use unit tests that either pass (complete or the expected exception is caught) or fail.
Good for you, but I don't.
In the same way that a 2-symbol language is Turing complete, a pass/fail system of unit tests is also complete.
Complete though it may be, it doesn't address my needs.
Adding N other levels (N >= 1) for warnings doesn't add anything and can make your type algebra unnecessarily complex.
Boost.Test already support three "symbols": BOOST_REQUIRE_* BOOST_CHECK_* BOOST_WARN_* and catches system errors (which could be interpreted as a fourth but seem to get lumped in with any failing BOOST_REQUIRE_* assertions). What you're seems to be implying is that BOOST_WARN_* is a bad idea. I disagree, because there are "failure" modes that are not release critical. It is these that I want to flag through BOOST_WARN_* and report to our CI setup. We want to know how many we have and where they are so we can think about addressing them. So what I want to do is report the number of tests that passed all of their BOOST_REQUIRE_* and BOOST_CHECK_* assertions, but failed one or more BOOST_WARN_* assertions. So anyone have any suggestions? Thanks in advance, -- Olaf Meeuwissen, LPIC-2 FLOSS Engineer -- AVASYS CORPORATION FSF Associate Member #1962 Help support software freedom http://www.fsf.org/jf?referrer=1962