Andrzej Krzemienski wrote
Hi Gennadiy, The new interface looks very attractive. Below I enclose two suggestions that are orthogonal (I think) to your changes, but I thought it was a good time to suggest them.
2012/11/4 Gennadiy Rozental <
rogeeff@
>
2. BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE, BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION, BOOST_CHECK_SMALL
We can deal with these by introducing couple special tags:
BOOST_TEST(a == 1.5, unit_test::tolerance(1e-6) ); BOOST_TEST(a == 0.003, unit_test::percent_tolerance(1e-6) ); BOOST_TEST(a, unit_test::small(1e-3) );
On a plus side we'll be able to use these in new previously unavailable way: BOOST_TEST(a > 1.1, unit_test::tolerance(1e-6) );
This would test that value of a either > 1.1 or within a fraction tolerance of it.
In my job, we are using Boost.Test in a commercial app. We are doing (and testing) some basic computations on physical quantities. It turned out that for around 95% of the checks on floating-point values we need the very same (percent) tolerance. And it is inconvenient to have to type the same constant time and again. It would be nice if there was a way to define (as an option) a "default tolerance". With the solution you propose above, having to type this tag "unit_test::percent_tolerance" would incur even more "syntactic noise" in cases where the tolerance is "obvious" to the reader. Here, the concept of default tolerance would be even more useful. Although I am not sure if this is doable. But perhaps it is: if I am able to configure the framework so that when it sees a check on floating-point numbers it assumes we check with tolerance: default one.
What do you think?
it seems easy for you to define your specific macro #define MY_FP_TEST(E) BOOST_TEST(E, my_tolerance ); and change the my_tolerance as you want. Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/test-BOOST-TEST-universal-testing-tool-tp... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.