On 2 Jun 2015 at 23:10, Peter Dimov wrote:
I am personally opposed to lightweight test because it does not integrate well with test results aggregation tooling, and therefore should not be used in new code.
What would it take for lightweight_test to be changed to integrate well?
I did read your "more explanation" but it didn't answer this question.
I don't consider there to be any need for lightweight_test in new code when you have a choice between the very capable Boost.Test and its emulation based on CATCH. One test code can do both on a compile time switch, or indeed simply use assert. However, seeing as you ask, I think it was Steven who told me at C++ Now that apparently Boost.Build has the ability to spit out XML for whether individual test programs pass or fail, and from that I would imagine a XSLT could generate JUnit XML. So I guess that facility would just need to be finished and documented, and you're good to go. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/