How can I develop generic test code and using it with the test_suite
I have the following code for a sample test. I was wondering how I can move code that is common to a long off different test files to a common location and use inheritance? In the code below I can do two things. If its indeed generic I can encapsulate it in a common class used in the tests. Secondly I could put test_one and test_two in a class and inherit from the parent generic class. What is the best solution for what I am trying to do? Stephen ----------CODE-------------- #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> #include <fstream> using namespace boost::unit_test; using namespace boost::unit_test_framework; class A {} class B {} A* helper_run_test ( B& target_ref, std::string target_file ) { ... do work on B and return A* result } void test_one () { B& b_ref; A* helper_run_test ( b, "Apple" ); .. perform a BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL } void test_two () { B& b_ref; A* helper_run_test ( b, "Peach" ); .. perform a BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL } test_suite* init_unit_test_suite ( int, char**) { test_suite* test = BOOST_TEST_SUITE ("My test suite"); test->add ( BOOST_TEST_CASE ( &test_one ) ); test->add ( BOOST_TEST_CASE ( &test_two ) ); return test; }
"Stephen Torri" <storri@torri.org> wrote in message news:1169597636.8109.18.camel@base.torri.org...
I have the following code for a sample test. I was wondering how I can move code that is common to a long off different test files to a common location and use inheritance?
Why would you want to use an inheritance (just a general question)?
In the code below I can do two things. If its indeed generic I can encapsulate it in a common class used in the tests. Secondly I could put test_one and test_two in a class and inherit from the parent generic class. What is the best solution for what I am trying to do?
To be frank with you I do not see anything particular generic in the code below and don't really understand what you are trying to do. Could you please give some more detailes. Than I probably be able to give some recommendations.
Stephen
----------CODE--------------
#include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> #include <fstream>
using namespace boost::unit_test; using namespace boost::unit_test_framework;
You don't need secont using statement. Both namespaces are synonims.
class A {} class B {}
A* helper_run_test ( B& target_ref, std::string target_file ) { ... do work on B and return A* result }
void test_one () { B& b_ref;
That's invalid
A* helper_run_test ( b, "Apple" ); .. perform a BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL }
void test_two () { B& b_ref; A* helper_run_test ( b, "Peach" ); .. perform a BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL }
test_suite* init_unit_test_suite ( int, char**) { test_suite* test = BOOST_TEST_SUITE ("My test suite");
test->add ( BOOST_TEST_CASE ( &test_one ) ); test->add ( BOOST_TEST_CASE ( &test_two ) );
return test; }
I recommend you to avoid init_unit_test_suite and use BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE instead. Gennadiy
Gennadiy, sorry to be off-topic. Just a general question on your statement:
I recommend you to avoid init_unit_test_suite and use BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE instead.
Do you generally recommend to avoid init_unit_test_suite? If yes, could you explain why? I have some hierarchy of unit tests which might depend on other tests. And in case of avoiding init_unit_test_suite, I would need to introduce one more level in the hierarchy, since in my case test_suite can depend on some other test_suits. Currently this kind of dependency is added in init_unit_test_suite. Thanks, Ovanes On Thu, January 25, 2007 17:34, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
"Stephen Torri" <storri@torri.org> wrote in message news:1169597636.8109.18.camel@base.torri.org...
I have the following code for a sample test. I was wondering how I can move code that is common to a long off different test files to a common location and use inheritance?
Why would you want to use an inheritance (just a general question)?
In the code below I can do two things. If its indeed generic I can encapsulate it in a common class used in the tests. Secondly I could put test_one and test_two in a class and inherit from the parent generic class. What is the best solution for what I am trying to do?
To be frank with you I do not see anything particular generic in the code below and don't really understand what you are trying to do. Could you please give some more detailes. Than I probably be able to give some recommendations.
Stephen
----------CODE--------------
#include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> #include <fstream>
using namespace boost::unit_test; using namespace boost::unit_test_framework;
You don't need secont using statement. Both namespaces are synonims.
class A {} class B {}
A* helper_run_test ( B& target_ref, std::string target_file ) { ... do work on B and return A* result }
void test_one () { B& b_ref;
That's invalid
A* helper_run_test ( b, "Apple" ); .. perform a BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL }
void test_two () { B& b_ref; A* helper_run_test ( b, "Peach" ); .. perform a BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL }
test_suite* init_unit_test_suite ( int, char**) { test_suite* test = BOOST_TEST_SUITE ("My test suite");
test->add ( BOOST_TEST_CASE ( &test_one ) ); test->add ( BOOST_TEST_CASE ( &test_two ) );
return test; }
I recommend you to avoid init_unit_test_suite and use BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE instead.
Gennadiy
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
"Ovanes Markarian" <om_boost@keywallet.com> wrote in message news:37153.194.138.18.131.1169751616.squirrel@www.keywallet.com...
Do you generally recommend to avoid init_unit_test_suite? If yes, could you explain why?
I have some hierarchy of unit tests which might depend on other tests. And in case of avoiding init_unit_test_suite, I would need to introduce one more level in the hierarchy, since in my case test_suite can depend on some other test_suits. Currently this kind of dependency is added in init_unit_test_suite.
init_unit_test_suite is required in comparatively small number of cases. Test unit dependency specification is one of them (though I may consider supporting dependency specification for auto test units in a future). For the most test modules (like the one in OP) you could use auto test cases instead. It's save you from unnecessary work of manual test case registration. Gennadiy
participants (3)
-
Gennadiy Rozental -
Ovanes Markarian -
Stephen Torri