[test] Test Execution monitor fate
Hi, While working on Boost.Test documentation update I've realized that there is no substantial reason anymore to keep this component around. The Unit Test Framework work just as well and does not require any more effort. Here is an example: Using the Test Execution Monitor: ---------------------------------- #include <boost/test/test_exec_monitor.cpp> int test_main( int, char* [] ) { /// your testing is here return 0; } Using the Unit Test Framework: ---------------------------------- #define BOOST_TEST_MAIN #include <boost/test/unit _test.cpp> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( my_test ) { /// your testing is here } There are monor preferences for either solution (test_main look like main, but require return statement and argument specifications). But from usability standpoint they are similar. I know that many Boost developers are using this component. So I would like to hear community opinion. If nobody speak up I am planning to depricate this component (first from documentation in 1.34, an from source code in 1.36) Regards, Gennadiy
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Gennadiy Rozental | Sent: 07 February 2006 16:43 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: [boost] [test] Test Execution monitor fate | While working on Boost.Test documentation update I've | realized that there is | no substantial reason anymore to keep this component around. | The Unit Test Framework work just as well and does not require any more effort. And I also think we could get rid of Test Tools as a separate library - so there is just ONE library, which could easily be supplied pre-built, and to which it is auto-linked. I feel strongly that this is the Right Thing To Do - it makes testing simple and uniform. One of the major barriers to using Boost.Test is complexity. Doing everything with one tool is much easier. Sine I don't have to change a lot of Boost testing code, I would say that ;-) But I am going to change all MY code. However there is plenty of time to make the changes, and they are not major. Paul -- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB Phone and SMS text +44 1539 561830, Mobile and SMS text +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com http://www.hetp.u-net.com/index.html http://www.hetp.u-net.com/Paul%20A%20Bristow%20info.html
Gennadiy Rozental a écrit :
My biggest trouble when I had to learn boost::test was: Why are there so many framework, what are the differences between them, which one should I use... Finally, I only use the Unit Test Framework. And I think simplifying the library in this direction is a good step forward. -- Loïc
On 2/7/06, Loïc Joly <loic.actarus.joly@numericable.fr> wrote:
Finally, I only use the Unit Test Framework. And I think simplifying the library in this direction is a good step forward.
I'd agree that a single library would be an improvement, and am another user who only links with the Unit Test Framework (I make heavy use of Test Tools but these are header-only). I'm hopeful that the Boost.Test documentation overhaul that is currently underway will clarify these issues for new users. -- Caleb Epstein caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com
participants (4)
-
Caleb Epstein -
Gennadiy Rozental -
Loïc Joly -
Paul A Bristow