October 2013 - Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

Interest in Base2/16/32/64 Encoding Library?
by Thomas Kemmer 27 Jan '14

27 Jan '14

Dear Boost Developers, I would like to know if there is interest in incorporating a generic Base2/16/32/64 encoding library into Boost. I am the author of such a libray, hosted at http://code.google.com/p/stlencoders/ and would be willing to contribute and make the effort of "Boostifying" it, if the Boost community is interested in such a thing. There have been several suggestions for a Base64 encoding library on this mailing list in the past. Most of them have been dismissed, since Boost already provides a Base64 implementation with Boost.Serialization's "Dataflow Iterators". Though I appreciate the dataflow iterator's design, from personal experience I think that for the basic task of encoding/decoding, a higher-level interface, e.g. one that takes padding and intermittent whitespace (MIME) into account, would benefit many developers. Currently, the stlencoders library - implements the Base16, Base32 and Base64 encoding schemes as defined in RFC 4648. Base2, i.e. binary encoding, is also supported. - implements encoding and decoding operations as generic algorithms that operate on STL-style iterators - supports different encoding alphabets using custom traits classes - supports different character types - lets the user define if/which non-alphabet characters should be ignored via predicates - provides reasonable performance that matches most "plain C" implementations stlencoders is currently designed as a stand-alone library with no dependencies on Boost (or anything but C++03); it would therefore take some effort and guidance from the community to properly integrate it with the rest of Boost. I would therefore appreciate any feedback regarding your interest in this. Kind Regards, Thomas

7 11

C++03 and C++11 ABI compatibility for compiled libraries
by Andrey Semashev 24 Jan '14

24 Jan '14

Hi, I would like to raise the issue of binary compatibility of compiled Boost libraries between C++03 and C++11. I faced this problem with gcc on Linux, but other compilers and platforms may be affected as well. To summarize the problem: * Most, if not all Linux distributions build packages in C++03 mode. This is also the default in gcc. * Some Boost libraries conditionally use C++11 features in their binary interfaces (see [1] as an example). This makes C++03 and C++11 versions of the library binary incompatible. * Given that, users are unable to use C++11 in their code that uses Boost because of linker failures. I don't have the complete list of the offending C++11 features that break ABI, but it would seem that at least scoped enums and rvalue references are among them. Are there any more? I would like to hear opinions on the possible course of action to tackle this problem. Currently, I see 2 choices: 1. Avoid using C++11 features in binary interfaces. This may also mean avoiding STL types in binary interfaces, if they differ between C++03 and C++11 (I didn't verify that). This is my suggested hotfix solution for Boost.Filesystem [1] and the approach I took in Boost.Log. Obviously, this cripples code and error prone, but it keeps a single binary that can be used from any flavor of C++ on the user's side. 2. Compile different versions of Boost libraries, for each supported C++ version. The C++ version should be encoded into the library file names, so that different versions can coexist. This would require changes in Boost.Build and autolinking support code, but I think this would be a better long-term solution. Opinions? [1] https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6779

12 27

Removing support for old compilers
by Joaquin M Lopez Munoz 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

Hi Stephen As part of your initiative of removing support for old compilers, are you building somewhere a change log in the form of either a list of compiler deficiencies or compiler versions no longer supported? I understand this should be inserted in a prominent place on the Boost 1.56 release notes and can serve as a reference for lib maintainers reviewing your patches (tracking changesets is harder and commit messages are not always completely illuminating). Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica Digital

16 51

[block_ptr] & Java
by Phil Bouchard 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

Hello everyone, In a quest to speed up my Android applications and knowing Java is written in C++, I decided to discuss with the OS community openjdk.java.net to try to introduce them block_ptr. But the conversation was dead in the water probably due to the lack of developers. So I just have questions: - Does anybody know if Java uses Boost? - block_ptr hasn't been reviewed yet but memory management is an important subject. Are there unanswered questions about it? Sincerely, -Phil Experiment proposal to refute Special Relativity for the interested: http://finitetheory.com/files/experiment.pdf

11 39

[Macro]Test Case grouping using Traits
by Hemanth Choudary M V (RBEI/ETA1) 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hello, I have observed that in native unit test framework(c++), there is an option to group test cases using attributes which are reflected as traits in the Test Explorer window in MS VS2012. Following is a an example of the same: BEGIN_TEST_METHOD_ATTRIBUTE(TestMethod3) TEST_OWNER(L"SuperMan") TEST_PRIORITY(2) TEST_METHOD_ATTRIBUTE(L"Category",L"Slow") END_TEST_METHOD_ATTRIBUTE() TEST_METHOD(TestMethod3) { Assert::AreEqual(2,6); } How can this be achieved via Boost Unit Test Library? Are there macros to achieve the same? Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards, Hemanth Choudary MV RBEI/ETA1

2 1

[Test] Problems with debug::break_memory_alloc
by Fredrik Orderud 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

I have a problem with the memory-leak detection logic in boost.test. What happens when unit_test::framework::init starts up on Windows is that memory-leak detection is first explicitly activated. Secondly, debug::break_memory_alloc is called with a value (default is 1). Activation of leak detection is great, but to always override the allocation number to break on is not necessary a good idea if the user has already set a value from a debugger. In my case I am investigating a leak from a static member allocated prior to main and/or boost.test being invoked. In that case, I need to break the program early to be able to set the allocation number to break on. This works well by itself, but it's _very_ confusing when boost.test afterwards replaces my allocation number with a default value. Could it be possible to modify boost.test, so that it only modifies the allocation number to break on if the user has explicitly requested to break on a given allocation? Thanks in advance, Fredrik Orderud

2 4

[test] broken (fails to compile) with boost.timer since 1.48
by Jamie Allsop 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Boost.Test fails to compile since 1.48 when Boost.Timer is included. I find that often I want to use timers when testing. I reported this back in 2012 along with a comprehensive patch that fixes the issue. On the eve of 1.55 I see the patch has still not been applied, despite an original agreement to do so. Unfortunately I don't have commit privileges so I am unable to do this myself. The original discussion from here: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2012/09/196811.php went as follows: > On 25/09/12 18:14, Gennadiy Rozental wrote: >> Jamie Allsop<ja11sop<at> yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> >>> >>> These are patches we've been using for some time locally, the recent >>> discussions highlighted the importance of pushing patches like these to >>> a wider audience. >>> >>> In summary the key changes are: >>> >>> * https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7410 >>> * https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7397 >> >> These are fine. I'll try to check it in on a weekend > > Excellent thanks! Yet https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7397 was never applied. With changes to Boost.Test since then it is likely that the patch needs modified to be applied but that should not be too hard. Apart from that I'd like to see the suite of 4 patches applied as a whole. So far only https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7410 has been applied but the patches address severe use-case short-comings in Boost.Test that make it viable for broader testing use. I've summaried them below. * https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7397 * https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7410 (applied) * https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7417 (small) * https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7419 (small) Original discussion that didn't really get very far was in these threads: * http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2012/09/196811.php * http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2012/09/196828.php For those who are interested I've pasted my original motivations from the year old thread below as a reminder. Basically the patches allow Boost.Test to: * compile with Boost.Timer (so not broken) * output test progress on the fly in a format other tools could parse * allows Boost.Test to be used for live test diagnostics in running systems in a 'test' mode Jamie * https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7410 (applied) * all test cases/suites have file and line information captured so that external tools can use the Boost.Log output to create links into the source tree, answering questions like, "What is this test case?". It is possible to simply follow the link and see. * https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7417 * update the Boost.Test log output to include summary status information when a test case or suite is completed. This includes the test status, assertions passed and total assertions. This allows live test status to be viewed and nicer tools to be built around this. For example each test can be shown starting, in progress and then complete with the resulting status in detail. I should note that Boost.Test reports currently output this additional test status but this is done only on *completion of all tests* and so *cannot* be used to show live progress. * this additional test status as part of the log can be easily captured using regular expressions if HRF is used and many IDEs will allow colourisation, autolinking and so on using similar approaches. * https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7397 * update Boost.Test to use the new Boost.Timer classes introduced in Boost 1.48. This can be suppressed through the use of a macro should the old timers be preferred. The new Boost.Timer provides much better timing information than the old Boost.Timer library. You should refer to the library itself for an explanation of why the previous timer library was deprecated: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_51_0/libs/timer/doc/index.html * https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7419 Essentially the patch does two things: * It allows boost::unit_test_framework::init() to be called more than once. The result is to reset the test status and master test suite so that new tests can be added and new reports generated through multiple calls. The CLA parsing is also reset. Recent changes to this code may make my call to clear() redundant. I'll let Gennadiy be the judge of that. * This first change then allows the framework setup and teardown to be encapsulated in a helper class (not provided in the patch but one could be). In our systems we use a helper class that exposes a simple API that allows the user to implement a method where test units can be added directly to the master test suite - see the ticket for an example. As I said the patch focuses solely on enabling the possibility of writing such a class, not the class itself. * It provides scoped Boost.Test arguments for the commandline when BOOST_TEST_USE_QUALIFIED_COMMANDLINE_ARGUMENTS is defined. All command line arguments are then called --boost.test.<argument> for example --boost.test.log_level instead of --log_level. This of course means that all Boost.Test related arguments will not clash with any program arguments. On its own this is a generally useful feature as it allows custom main() functions to pass arguments down to other components during simple unit testing.

2 1

[test] still broken in release
by Tim Blechmann 30 Dec '13

30 Dec '13

hi all, i've reported an issue before that boost.test in the release branch is pretty broken. *all* tests of the boost.heap testsuite segfault like this: --Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x00000000005f4975 in boost::unit_test::test_suite::add (this=0x8cefa0, tu=0x9, expected_failures=0, timeout=0) at ../../../boost/test/impl/unit_test_suite.ipp:139 139 m_members.push_back( tu->p_id ); (gdb) bt #0 0x00000000005f4975 in boost::unit_test::test_suite::add (this=0x8cefa0, tu=0x9, expected_failures=0, timeout=0) at ../../../boost/test/impl/unit_test_suite.ipp:139 #1 0x00000000005fda9c in boost::unit_test::ut_detail::test_init_caller::operator() (this=0x8d4e08) at ../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:96 #2 0x00000000006031a2 in boost::unit_test::ut_detail::invoker<int>::invoke<boost::unit_test::ut_detail::test_init_caller> (this=0x7fffffffc36f, f=...) at ../../../boost/test/utils/callback.hpp:42 #3 0x0000000000603071 in boost::unit_test::ut_detail::callback0_impl_t<int, boost::unit_test::ut_detail::test_init_caller>::invoke (this=0x8d4e00) at ../../../boost/test/utils/callback.hpp:89 #4 0x000000000060e03d in boost::unit_test::callback0<int>::operator() (this=0x7fffffffcfc0) at ../../../boost/test/utils/callback.hpp:118 #5 0x000000000060de8a in boost::detail::do_invoke<boost::scoped_ptr<boost::detail::translate_exception_base>, boost::unit_test::callback0<int> > (tr=..., F=...) at ../../../boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp:281 #6 0x000000000060d1a8 in boost::execution_monitor::catch_signals (this=0x7fffffffcfd0, F=...) at ../../../boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp:885 #7 0x000000000060d262 in boost::execution_monitor::execute (this=0x7fffffffcfd0, F=...) at ../../../boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp:1211 #8 0x00007ffff7b0bf33 in boost::unit_test::framework::init (init_func=0x4e3f30 <init_unit_test()>, argc=1, argv=0x7fffffffd198) at ../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:268 #9 0x00007ffff7b22267 in boost::unit_test::unit_test_main (init_func=0x4e3f30 <init_unit_test()>, argc=1, argv=0x7fffffffd198) at ../../../boost/test/impl/unit_test_main.ipp:177 #10 0x00000000004e3f62 in main (argc=1, argv=0x7fffffffd198) at ../../../boost/test/unit_test.hpp:59 -- boost.test in trunk works fine, though ... i wonder, will it eventually be merged to release? tim

7 28

[test] Interest in 'hamcrest'-style checks?
by Jared Grubb 29 Dec '13

29 Dec '13

I recently read "Modern C++ Programming with Test-Driven Development", and I really enjoyed this book and highly recommend it. One of the styles I saw for the first time was "hamcrest"-style assertions. ("Hamcrest" is an anagram of "matchers"; also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamcrest.) For a quick idea, imagine there is a BOOST_CHECK_THAT macro that looks like this: (excuse my choice of names here, we can pick better ones if people like the idea) BOOST_CHECK_THAT( str, IsEqualTo(expStr) ); BOOST_CHECK_THAT( str, HasSubstring(needleStr) ); BOOST_CHECK_THAT( str, Not(HasSubstring(badStr)) ); BOOST_CHECK_THAT( vec, Contains(42) ); Comparing them to current boost::test assertions, usually the two are directly equivalent, and it's just a matter of style. At first, I was unconvinced of a need for this. However, there are a few scenarios where the hamcrest-style actually are really helpful: BOOST_CHECK_THAT(vec, Any(Contains(42), Contains(-42)) ); BOOST_CHECK_THAT(str, All(StartsWith("abc"), HasSubstring("lmnop"), EndsWith("xyz")) ); BOOST_CHECK_THAT(count, All(GE(0), LT(10)) ); BOOST_CHECK_THAT(vec, HasSubsequence(otherVec) ); BOOST_CHECK_THAT(vec, Sorted(IsEqualTo({1, 2, 3})) ); BOOST_CHECK_THAT(optionalStr, Any(IsEqualTo(boost::none), Deref(IsEqualTo("str"))); Sure, almost all of this is already doable: BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL_COLLECTIONS( /* sorry, but I really dislike this one :) */ ); BOOST_CHECK( std::count(vec.begin(), vec.end(), 42) && std::count(vec.begin(), vec.end(), -42) ); And, yes, you can create a helper functors today: BOOST_CHECK( Contains(vec, 42) && Contains(vec, -42) ); But hamcrest still gives these advantages over even that: * Dont repeat yourself: -- the value under test appears only once in the check expression; this is really helpful if you want to test an expression ("future.get()") that can only be called once * Better diagnostics: -- when something fails, you can get a detailed error (eg: "blah does not contain the element blah" or "str does not start with blah") -- when you have "Any" conditions, "errors" get squashed if some other condition passes, but all are shown if none pass -- composed tests can provide nested diagnostics; eg: for All(A, Any(B,C)), you'd get something like "'...A...' is true, but none of { '...B...' , '...C...' } are true", but spread over many lines -- and even with indentation if we want * Intentional Asymmetry: Is it BOOST_CHECK_EQ(expected, actual) or (actual, expected)? It really doesnt matter in the end, but a message like "expected 34, got 33" is actually kinda nice. Putting the value under test at the start creates an asymmetry that helps guide the user to put the values in the "right" order. * Composability * Extendibility: once the facility is there, its actually really easy to write more ("CanLockMySemaphoreType(timeout)") I wasnt able to find any discussion on boost's list for this, so I thought I'd bring it up. As for difficulty, implementing the examples above is actually already quite easy using boost::test predicates, and the extra macro would be fairly simple to implement. Almost all the work would be in creating the library of matchers, which is the fun part :) What do you think? Jared

5 11

[boost.test] Correct usage?
by Philip Bennefall 29 Dec '13

29 Dec '13

Hello, I just started writing unit tests for a large project that I am involved in, and boost.test has been absolutely fantastic to work with so far. True the documentation could be clearer, but as far as functionality I am very much impressed with the library. I have a question though. I read the following: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/10/186439.php This concerns me. What is the status here? When I build boost_1_54_0, in my stage/lib directory I see: libboost_test_exec_monitor-vc100-mt-s-1_54.lib My test cases look as follows: #define BOOST_TEST_MODULE MyProgram #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_SUITE(basic_operations, basic_memory_logger) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( some_test ) { // ... // Using BOOST_REQUIRE_EQUAL, BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL, BOOST_CHECK, BOOST_REQUIRE_EQUAL_COLLECTIONS and friends here. } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END() My questions are: 1. Are all these macros still supported and not depricated? 2. Is the structure correct? Am I depending on something depricated? Am I including the right header? I am linking with the library mentioned above (via auto-linking), which is why I am concerned about deprication. Thanks in advance for any clarification on this. Kind regards, Philip Bennefall

3 2