"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:uu0ew8rxm.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> writes:
When using boost/test/minimal.hpp, it doesn't respond to the presence of --catch_system_errors=no, which makes it unreasonably difficult to debug problems on Windows. All I get is an exception caught by the test library, with all of the info about the real cause of the error lost, which is absolutely unhelpful. It seems to me that the minimal configuration ought to at least be useful for writing and debugging simple test cases.
Minimal testing facility doesn't process any CLA.
http://boost.org/libs/test/doc/usage/command_line.html and http://boost.org/libs/test/doc/usage/msvc_net.html#t2 don't make that clear.
Minimal testing facility is in many sences "crippled" relative to te rest of Boost.Test components. There is a separate chapter covering it and the rest of docs doesn't have anything to do with it. If you think it worth the effort I could explicetly specify in all places: "Is not applicable ot Minimal Testing facility"
BTW, "CLA" is not a universally understood abbreviation. (http://boost.org/libs/test/doc/open_issues.html)
It's quite frequently used. But I could unabbreviate in docs.
Execution monitor by default catches all the errors (which I think reasonable default).
I'm not sure it is. It seems to me that Boost.Test has two uses:
1) for writing effective unit and regression tests 2) for writing "resilient" software
Given its name, I think (1) should be emphasized, but I think the "catches all errors" behavior is more appropriate to (2).
I guess it's a matter of personal preferense either. I nmany cases I don't need core to fix an error anonced with "fatal error" message. And if do need I could always specify extra parameter. On the other hand regression tests runners never need this. And I wouldn't want to force them to add this parameter always. IOW I think we need more compeling reason to change a default. Gennadiy