I'm looking into some possible options for unit testing C++ classes.
So, short and to the point, what are you using?
+4
A:
I'm using cppunit. It is a pretty good port of the iconic JUnit to c++.
David Arno
2008-10-24 17:33:48
The stable version of cppunit lacks many assertions, and requires a lot of hand written and redundant code that frameworks like cxxtest or fructose are able to infer automatically (thanks to external scripts actually). cppunit may be a port of a good Java framework, but it missed C++.
Luc Hermitte
2008-10-24 20:49:28
+2
A:
UnitTest++. In the past I used Boost Test, which is also pretty good, but I ran across a problem where boost test wanted an operator<< defined and it wouldn't accept my overloaded operator<<. UnitTest++ didn't flinch a bit.
ceretullis
2008-10-24 17:34:24
+2
A:
CxxTest, which runs a Perl script as a preprocessor to detect all methods named test*. It's pretty easy to work with, since Perl does all the suite/case registration for you.
Ben Straub
2008-10-24 17:39:49
+1
A:
This question has been asked and answered several times already. See stack overflow archives
Luc Hermitte
2008-10-24 17:45:03
Searching for the topic and digging through the unit testing category yielded no matches. Related questions doesn't show any matches, either.Apologies for the dupe, but finding information isn't as easy as it should be.
Gabriel Isenberg
2008-10-24 18:00:29
Try the link I gave -> It restricts the search to test-units and C++
Luc Hermitte
2008-10-24 20:46:57
A:
Simple console applications that link the lib / DLL, and use assert statements.
It fits my main requirements: easy to set up, and when an error occurs you can immediately break into the debugger.
To run an individual test repeatedly, the call to the routine is (temporary) copied to the top.
It has some shortcomings, though: First, you don't have an automatic visual verification which tests did run, but that can be fixed with a print statement. You don't get a list of tests that failed. Beyond that, compared to any environment supporting reflection, the added value of unit test frameworks seems a bit low to me. And better these than no unit tests at all.
peterchen
2008-10-24 21:00:08
+2
A:
Boost.Test. I use boost anyway, might as well use its test library as well rather than yet another different library.
KTC
2008-10-24 22:49:27
I used to agree with you... one day I spent 4 or 5 hours trying to get Boost Test to take an overloaded ostream operator, after which I thought maybe I'll try another testing framework just to see... UnitTest++ didn't complain a bit.
ceretullis
2008-10-26 17:43:47