"Jens Seidel" <jensseidel@users.sf.net> wrote in message news:20071220161635.GA515@imkf-pc073.imkf.tu-freiberg.de...
Hi,
I know it may no longer fit on this list but as I started here let's not move the list ...
I read most of the new documentation but to make it short: I still fail to use unit tests. It worked in the past but after a lot of changes in Boost.Tests it is now unusable for me.
Let's see concrete examples.
* According to http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/05/121601.php linkers don't look into libraries (either static or dynamic) to find main so that unit tests cannot be cimpiled as shared library.
It's not a bug. It's a feature. ;) Starting 1.34.1 main() doesn't reside in shared libs.
In any case Boost.Test supports what you want. In many, many cases you don't need init_.. function anymore and boost test provides a way for users to get away without it and function main() as well both with static and shared library usage variant of the UTF. If you
OK. This is probably preferred.
But now I wonder why I should make a lot of incompatibles changes? I want my program and all tests beeing able to compile everywhere with (nearly) all versions of Boost.
Using some small code parts condionally depending on autotools system and Boost tests (version of boost, shared library is available?, ...) would be acceptable but I'm no willing to make major changes to my code.
You shouldn't be required.
prefer to define main youself and invoke init function you can do it as well with shared library variant.
And how?
See example 9 on http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/user-guide/test-organization/manua...
Including the header boost/test/included/unit_test.hpp *once* per binary seems to work but normal using of boost/test/unit_test.hpp together with an additional #define BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK still leads to a missing main() function. I get since 1.34.1: /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.2.3/../../../../lib/crt1.o: In function `_start': (.text+0x18): undefined reference to `main' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
You also need to define either BOOST_TEST_MODULE or BOOST_TEST_MAIN if you want Boost.Test to generate main function for you. Like in an example 18 here: http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/user-guide/test-organization/maste...
I defined also a dummy main function (just to make the linker happy as I assumed the tests are maybe started in the contructor of a static variable) but my test is not called. Even calling init_unit_test_suite() from main() does not work.
You need to call a test runner not init function. See example 9 above.
I also defined BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK on the comandline to ensure that all code uses it. Same result! Defining addionally BOOST_TEST_MAIN results in a a proper empty test with the output "Test setup error: test tree is empty"
Because BOOST_TEST_MAIN produces both function main and empty init function. It's assumed that test units are automatically registered.
I thought I have also seen a conflict with my own init_unit_test_suite() implementation if I define BOOST_TEST_MAIN but cannot reproduce it.
There would be a compile time error if you follow proper signature of init function for use with shared library.
A question: Would it be save to define BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK also for static linkage?
No.
I hope so as I have never, really never used different code depending on linker options.
We have to be tollerant to guest from other continents. Our policies selected to work the same way for every one.
Even after renaming my main test_suite* init_unit_test_suite(int, char *[]) function into bool init_unit_test() (but only for dynamic linkage?) as noticed on http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/user-guide/initialization.html I fail as usual.
You should see compilation errors now.
Short: In the past it was so simple:
#include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> using boost::unit_test::test_suite; test_suite* init_unit_test_suite(int, char *[]) { test_suite *test = BOOST_TEST_SUITE("Master test suite"); test->add(BOOST_TEST_CASE(&JacobiTest1)); return test; }
Now I use
* Additional autoconf code to define HAVE_UNIT_TEST_LIB if the (shared?) library is used.
#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H #include <config.h> // HAVE_UNIT_TEST_LIB #endif
#ifdef HAVE_UNIT_TEST_LIB # define BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK # include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> #else # include <boost/test/included/unit_test.hpp> #endif
1. You can use static library and no need to define BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK for either library of included variant 2. You can use included variant always 3. You can switch to automated registration and you don't need to define nor function main(), nor init function
using boost::unit_test::test_suite;
bool init_unit_test() { // my old init_unit_test_suite code }
/* int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { init_unit_test_suite(argc, argv); return 0; } */
If you insist on combination of manual registration with shared library, it should look like this: int main( int argc, char* argv[] ) { return ::boost::unit_test::unit_test_main( &init_unit_test, argc, argv ); }
the required information is wrong and incomplete and addionally
What is wrong?
scattered across multiple pages such as http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/compilation.html http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/compilation/direct-include.html http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/user-guide/usage-variants.html (and all referenced sub pages) http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/user-guide/test-runners.html http://www.patmedia.net/~rogeeff/html/utf/user-guide/initialization.html
If you can express it all better I am open to sugestions. It is indeed not very trivial (considering many different usage variant of Boost.Test) to describe all necessary information and be both complete and easily accessible to first timers.
To show you that I really read (at least up to UTF) the documenation I mention a few errors in it:
I'll look on these later. Thanks for the comments Gennadiy