Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com> writes:
Sometimes, however, there's no compile-time bool to work with.
If I am the author of std::pair and I write:
// test that pair doesn't somehow convert unrelated types // into values that can be used for construction std::pair<int,int> x("foo", "bar");
I expect that test to fail compilation. There's no useful assertion you can do that will turn it into a runtime error.
Yes. There are always some implied/implicit expectations. And I also do not see any way to make it into a testable concepts since it belongs to a member function, unless we can come up with a means to attach concept to the member function. In that case we would have checked std::pair<int,int>::pair<std::string,std::string>::concept
Personally I am very uncomfortable with the use of exceptions to deal with failed assertions, and in a test that's just a bunch of compile-time assertions, I don't see *any* advantage whatsoever in using exceptions.
This is usual deal with unit tests: you want to test all the expectations.
Yes
Imagine you expect that your component does not work with int. Meaning MyComponent<int> should fail to compile.
Yes. This is the kind of case I'm talking about.
How can you record and test this expectation? In original version - no way to do this.
Hm? Original versoin of what?
of MyComponent implementation in my first reply.
Your only option is to put into test module some test statements and comment them out.
We do it today by having "expected compilation failure" (compile-fail) tests (a more robust system would test the contents of the error message, but that's another thing).
Yes. There is this option, but it's hardly robust. You can't be sure it fails to compile for a reason you expect it to and checking against compiler output is frankly madness. Not only it's different for different compilers, but it also tend to change with every modification of component implementation.
Now imagine that you or someone else changes implementation of the component and suddenly MyComponent<int> compiles. Your original expectation is broken. And yet your test module does not notify about it.
Not mine; I build a compile-fail test.
In practice there are few people who rely on these. Having compilable, runtime reportable and robust alternative would be of use for everyone else.
With the approach above these expectations are testable. You define macro UNITEST, use TESTABLE_ASSERT in your development and that's it.
I'm sorry, I read what you wrote above but don't see anything in there that would make this work.
In a test code you'd define UNITTEST on top and write something like: BOOST_CHECK( !MyComponent<int>::concept::value ) This failure will be reported at runtime.
Now if you can come up with another approach to test these expectations I'd be happy to listen.
We already have an approach; it requires integration with the test system. Yes, it's imperfect, but it does do the kind of testing needed to see that MyComponent<int> is prohibited.
Again very few users have testing system smart enough even to recognize "expected compile failure" tests. And I personally would not use it if I can help it. Gennadiy