What Should we do About Boost.Test?
Hi All, I was just going through Boost.Test to try to figure out how to teach it, and while it looks to have substantial value, it is also in quite a mess. It contains loads of features that are exercised in the examples/ directory but neither included in any of the tests nor documented. There are facilities for command-line argument parsing! There are "decorators" that turn on/off features for test cases. There is support for mock objects! These are cool and sometimes necessary features, but who knew? The third tutorial page (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_51_0/libs/test/doc/html/tutorials/new-year-r...) has a glaring typo in the code examples: "BOOST_AUTO_EST_CASE". There's no reference manual at all. There are nearly-identical files in the examples/ directory called "est_example1.cpp" and "test_example1.cpp" (Did the "t" key on someone's keyboard break?) I could go on, but where would I stop? I don't know what to do about this. Because of the lack of redundancy (i.e. tests and documentation), it's hard to tell whether this library is correct or even to define what "correct" should mean. It seems like, as long as the code is incompletely / incorrectly documented and tested, it's just someone's personal coding project that we happen to keep shipping with Boost, and not really a library for general use. This situation reflects poorly on Boost as a whole and the fact that it centers around a _testing_ library, which is concerned with robustness... well, let's just say that the irony isn't lost on me. I don't mean this posting as an attack on Gennadiy in any way, but I think the situation is unacceptable and therefore am opening a discussion about what should happen. As a straw man, I'll make this suggestion: - Boost.Test is officially deprecated in the next release - Its documentation, such as it is, is removed from the release after that - Meanwhile, other tests in Boost that use this library are rewritten to use a different mechanism
Whoa, I don't know what happened to the rest of my message! Here are the missing bits, recreated from memory on Mon Sep 17 2012, Dave Abrahams <dave-AT-boostpro.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I was just going through Boost.Test to try to figure out how to teach it, and while it looks to have substantial value, it is also in quite a mess. It contains loads of features that are exercised in the examples/ directory but neither included in any of the tests nor documented. There are facilities for command-line argument parsing! There are "decorators" that turn on/off features for test cases. There is support for mock objects! These are cool and sometimes necessary features, but who knew? The third tutorial page (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_51_0/libs/test/doc/html/tutorials/new-year-r...) has a glaring typo in the code examples: "BOOST_AUTO_EST_CASE". There's no reference manual at all. There are nearly-identical files in the examples/ directory called "est_example1.cpp" and "test_example1.cpp" (Did the "t" key on someone's keyboard break?) I could go on, but where would I stop?
I don't know what to do about this. Because of the lack of redundancy (i.e. tests and documentation), it's hard to tell whether this library is correct or even to define what "correct" should mean. It seems like, as long as the code is incompletely / incorrectly documented and tested, it's just someone's personal coding project that we happen to keep shipping with Boost, and not really a library for general use. This situation reflects poorly on Boost as a whole and the fact that it centers around a _testing_ library, which is concerned with robustness... well, let's just say that the irony isn't lost on me.
I don't mean this posting as an attack on Gennadiy in any way, but I think the situation is unacceptable and therefore am opening a discussion about what should happen.
As a straw man, I'll make this suggestion:
- Boost.Test is officially deprecated in the next release - Its documentation, such as it is, is removed from the release after that - Meanwhile, other tests in Boost that use this library are rewritten to use a different mechanism
- Finally, the library code is removed from Boost I'm not at all happy about the idea of ripping Boost.Test out of Boost, but practically speaking I think it would take a substantial commitment from volunteers other than Gennadiy to rescue it. I thought of volunteering to help myself, but realistically I know I wouldn't have the time, and volunteering when you can't deliver is worse than not volunteering at all. If such volunteer resources *did* show up, I'd want to proceed with my straw man suggestion, subject to reversal at any time should they get things back in shape. Your input much appreciated, -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost
participants (1)
-
Dave Abrahams