Re: [eigen] Bug in traspose

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

Thanks for the clarification; anyway it seems to fit my plans well. I'll write 
unit-tests without a framework, and then maybe CTest will allow me to avoid 
the hassle of having to write the c++ code to allow running a specific test 
by name.

It means the unit-tests will be split into smaller executables, which sounds 
like a good thing to do anyway.



On Thursday 17 January 2008 08:47:08 Ian Mackenzie wrote:
> On January 17, 2008 02:31:37 am Benoît Jacob wrote:
> > Interesting, I hadn't considered CTest.
> >
> > From what Ben and you say, I probably won't use CxxTest; in fact my
> > original idea was to write my unit-tests without relying on any existing
> > framework, as there is not so much work to do than what I have already
> > done (currently we don't use a lot of stuff from QTestLib). Now that you
> > mention CTest I'll consider it, it seems to be the only one potentially
> > solving one of my 2 problems and at leasts is no additional dependency.
> I should perhaps clarify - CTest isn't a testing framework like CxxTest or
> QTestLib is, it's simply a way of running a bunch of test executables and
> reporting the results (well, it has a bunch more fancy features, but I
> don't use them).  I use CxxTest to generate test executables and CTest just
> to run them; the output from CTest looks like
>   Start processing tests
>   Test project /home/ian/main/projects/opensolid/build
>     1/  5 Testing kernel_interval_tests            Passed
>     2/  5 Testing kernel_scalar_tests              Passed
>     3/  5 Testing python_kernel_interval_tests     Passed
>     4/  5 Testing python_kernel_scalar_tests       Passed
>     5/  5 Testing graph_action_tests               Passed
>   100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 5
> So if I wanted to run just the two python-related tests, I could run 'ctest
> -R python'.
> -Ian

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+