Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] Updates on urllib-dean branch

[Glyn M. <gly...@gm...>]

Hi Kim,

2009/11/9 Kim Gräsman <kim...@gm...>

> Hi guys,
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 22:21, Glyn Matthews <gly...@gm...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> > Consequently, I'd like to see all your unit tests repeated for
> >> > std::wstring.  I think this is important to do because it will really
> >> > justify the approach we are taking.
> >>
> >> I agree. Can this be done automatically? Copy-paste-replace?
> >
> > I wouldn't recommend copy-paste programming ;) Perhaps just refactor the
> > original tests so that they use template member functions:
> >
> > BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(my_uri_test) {
> >     boost::network::basic_uri<tags::default_> instance;
> >     my_uri_test_impl(instance);
> > }
> >
> > BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(my_uri_test_wstring) {
> >     boost::network::basic_uri<tags::wstring> instance;
> >     my_uri_test_impl(instance);
> > }
> >
> > or something like that, it won't be difficult.  But looking at that,
> we'll
> > need better names for the tags.
>
> For the xUnit, OO-style, test frameworks there's a pattern called
> Abstract Test Case, where all test methods reside in a base class,
> together with one or more abstract methods denoting variance. Then you
> create derived, concrete classes that implement the variations for the
> specific types, and the runner sees them as separate suites.
>
> That's essentially what you're describing above, except you would have
> to repeat every test case for every variation.
>
> I wonder if there's a way to use Boost.Test fixtures to implement
> Abstract Test Case with a type variation...?
>
>
This seems to be the recommended usage pattern for testing generic
components with different template patterns:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_40_0/libs/test/doc/html/utf/usage-recommendations/generic.html#id663542

Thanks,
Glyn