|Re: [eigen] Bug in traspose|
[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen 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. Cheers, Benoit 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
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
|Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+||http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/|