By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
428,601 Members | 1,116 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 428,601 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

unit--, a unit test framework for C++

P: n/a
hi, fellows

I'd like to intruduce a new unit test framework for C++
freely available at:

http://unit--.sourceforge.net/

It does not need bothering test registration, here is an example

// --- begin code ---
#include "unit--.h"

testSuite(MySuite);

testCase(CompareCase, MySuite)
{
int x = 1;
int y = x + 2;
assertTrue(x < y);
}
// --- end code ---

besides, unit-- is implemented entirely in std C++, thus is portable
across different platforms and compilers

Apr 15 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
5 Replies


P: n/a
VvanN wrote:
I'd like to intruduce a new unit test framework for C++
freely available at:

http://unit--.sourceforge.net/

It does not need bothering test registration, here is an example
Righteous. CppUnit mires itself in endless test registration issues, instead
of simply using macros to achieve the Test Collector pattern.
// --- begin code ---
#include "unit--.h"

testSuite(MySuite);

testCase(CompareCase, MySuite)
{
int x = 1;
int y = x + 2;
assertTrue(x < y);
}
// --- end code ---
Suppose I had two suites and wanted to run the same case over both suites?

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbstractTest

Suppose a test case uses std::basic_string<>. How would I run the test case
twice, once with char and again with wchar_t?
besides, unit-- is implemented entirely in std C++, thus is portable
across different platforms and compilers


Contrarily, at error time, your editor should present the option to navigate
to a failure, the same as syntax errors.

--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.org/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
Apr 15 '06 #2

P: n/a
"Phlip" <ph******@yahoo.com> writes:
VvanN wrote:
I'd like to intruduce a new unit test framework for C++
freely available at:

http://unit--.sourceforge.net/

It does not need bothering test registration, here is an example


Righteous. CppUnit mires itself in endless test registration issues, instead
of simply using macros to achieve the Test Collector pattern.


Those interested in such things might also check out the Boost unit
test framework <http://www.boost.org/libs/test/doc/index.html>; I've
had very good results using it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Steffen, Ph.D. Fools ignore complexity.
Software Engineer IV Pragmatists suffer it.
Numerica Corporation Some can avoid it.
ph (970) 419-8343 x27 Geniuses remove it.
fax (970) 223-6797 -- Alan Perlis
dgsteffen at numerica dot us
Apr 17 '06 #3

P: n/a
Dave Steffen wrote:
Those interested in such things might also check out the Boost unit
test framework <http://www.boost.org/libs/test/doc/index.html>; I've
had very good results using it.


That one always squicks me out.

Specifically, it relies on excessive test registration calls, and doesn't
use any Test Collector, despite otherwise freely abusing macros...

--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.org/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
Apr 17 '06 #4

P: n/a
Phlip wrote:
VvanN wrote:
I'd like to intruduce a new unit test framework for C++
freely available at:

http://unit--.sourceforge.net/

It does not need bothering test registration, here is an example


Righteous. CppUnit mires itself in endless test registration issues, instead
of simply using macros to achieve the Test Collector pattern.
// --- begin code ---
#include "unit--.h"

testSuite(MySuite);

testCase(CompareCase, MySuite)
{
int x = 1;
int y = x + 2;
assertTrue(x < y);
}
// --- end code ---


Suppose I had two suites and wanted to run the same case over both suites?

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbstractTest

Suppose a test case uses std::basic_string<>. How would I run the test case
twice, once with char and again with wchar_t?

we might consider that they are different test cases,
but they have code in common.

"extract method"
(http://www.refactoring.com/catalog/extractMethod.html)
could work for this scenario.
assertTrue() can effect in functions invoked by a testCase

here is an example:

// --- begin code ---
#include <vector>
#include <numeric>
#include <algorithm>
#include "../unit--.h"

testSuite(TemplateSuite)

template <typename T>
void testAlgorithms()
{
using namespace std;
using namespace unit_minus;
vector<T> ve(100, 1);
partial_sum(ve.begin(), ve.end(), ve.begin());

assertTrue(ve.size() > 0);
assertTrue(1 == ve[0]);
for (unsigned i = 1; i < ve.size(); ++i) {
assertTrue(ve[i - 1] + 1 < ve[i]);
}
}

namespace {
testCase(IntCase, TemplateSuite)
{
testAlgorithms<int>();
}

testCase(UnsignedCase, TemplateSuite)
{
testAlgorithms<unsigned>();
}

} // namespace
// --- end code ---
besides, unit-- is implemented entirely in std C++, thus is portable
across different platforms and compilers


Contrarily, at error time, your editor should present the option to navigate
to a failure, the same as syntax errors.

--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.org/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!


Apr 28 '06 #5

P: n/a
VvanN wrote:
testSuite(TemplateSuite)

template <typename T>
void testAlgorithms()
{
using namespace std;
using namespace unit_minus;
vector<T> ve(100, 1);
partial_sum(ve.begin(), ve.end(), ve.begin());

assertTrue(ve.size() > 0);
assertTrue(1 == ve[0]);
for (unsigned i = 1; i < ve.size(); ++i) {
assertTrue(ve[i - 1] + 1 < ve[i]);
}
}

namespace {
testCase(IntCase, TemplateSuite)
{
testAlgorithms<int>();
}

testCase(UnsignedCase, TemplateSuite)
{
testAlgorithms<unsigned>();
}

} // namespace
// --- end code ---


Thanks!

One use of AbstractTest is to turn a cases' setUp() and tearDown() into an
abstract factory. setUp() will create a different type, so a common case
body can work across a range of types. Your code doesn't need this effect
because your assertions are not members of the basic TestCase class.

(Assertions are typically macros, so I mean macros are members when they use
member variables inside them.)

--
Phlip
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
Apr 28 '06 #6

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.