Hi Gennadiy! On 2/3/07, Gennadiy Rozental <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> wrote:
"Dean Michael Berris" <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6adba9f0702011251m4c852715hb06eb0144c155fd6@mail.gmail.com...
Interesting, do you have any documentation regarding how to implement extensions?
No I am woring on the docs for this part of Boost.Test.
:-) I almost thought you meant "whoring"...
Or at least can you lead me on to which parts of Boost.Test I should start looking into? I already have Boost CVS HEAD at the moment...
Take a look on:
boost/test/ exception_safety.hpp interaction_based.hpp logged_expectations.hpp mock_object.hpp
boost/test/impl/ exception_safety.ipp interaction_based.ipp logged_expectations.ipp
libs/test/example
est_example1.cpp est_example2.cpp logged_exp_example.cpp
Great, thanks! I'll go on and take a look for myself. :-)
How does it correspond to what you are trying to do? Do you see any intersections and or possible additions to what Boost.Test currently presents.
I guess it would be better to show an example of what the BDD interface is about:
std::string str = "Hello, World!"; value(str).should.equal("Hello, World!");
I had been thinking that the implementation of `value(str).should.equal(...)' should use something like BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(str, ...).
Sorry. I do not see your point. Why can't you write:
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(str, "Hello, World!")
This is all fine and dandy if you're used to writing assertions. However, the BDD interface (current latest version under development) also allows you to do: value(str).should.match("regex pattern"); This little line can be used within a function to validate input, and not necessarily have to be in a Unit Test: int some_function(std::string const & str) { #ifdef DEBUG value(str).should.match("regex pattern"); #endif }; It should also be trivial to create a wrapping macro to do the preprocessor checking for debug version builds, and appropriate exception handling routines. So the real answer to the question is that nothing actually stops you from using the BOOST_CHECK or BOOST_REQUIRE macros in Boost.Test -- I'm just looking to provide an alternative interface to defining specifications not only in Unit Tests, but also in different parts of the code. The goal really of the interface is for a novel "more English like" way of defining specifications, where it is explicit what the value being inspected is and what the expected behavior is.
Maybe after reading code and/or examples you could give me some comparison of what I have and what you want to do. Be aware that I may not be familiar with some of the term you are using.
I already currently use (quite extensively) Boost.Test and the BOOST_REQUIRE/BOOST_CHECK macros in BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE blocks. I've also been successful in using the BDD interface in these unit tests, in a manner such as: BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE ( some_test ) { int result = perform_some_operation("Hello, World!"); value(result).should.be_divisible_by(3); }; as compared to BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE ( some_test ) { int result = perform_some_operation("Hello, World!"); BOOST_REQUIRE_EQUAL ( true, ((result % 3) == 0) ); }; HTH! -- Dean Michael C. Berris http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/ mikhailberis AT gmail DOT com +63 928 7291459