Steve talking about the macros got me thinking. The main reason why they
are an extension is that they use template member methods which is not very
portable.
Thinking a bit more, I realised that the macro where the way to use the
best of your platform: if you have RTTI, then it will be used, if you don't
then it won't. You can get the best of your platform without giving up
portability.
Here I propose a way to get ride of that template member method.
The template member method is actually used to instantiate a TestCaller
with the right fixture type when sublcassing.
The TestCaller class has evolved since then and you can now specify the
fixture instance in the constructor.
What I propose is to use a factory method that returns the instance of the
fixture to use. It would look like this:
the CPPUNIT_TEST_SUITE would define:
virtual TestCase *makeTestCase()
{
return new ThisTestCase();
}
void registerTests( TestSuiteBuilder<ThisTestCaseType> &suite )
{
and the CPPUNIT_TEST macro would do:
suite.addTest(
new TestCaller<ThisTestCaseType>( #method,
method,
makeTestCase() ) );
}
I don't have the source under my hand so some stuff might be a bit of, but
the idea is there. You could even have a version of the macro not defining the
method makeTestCase(), allowing you to construct the test case in a specific
way when your subclassing a test case.
So what do you think ?
Baptiste.
---
Baptiste Lepilleur <gai...@fr...>
http://gaiacrtn.free.fr/index.html
Language: English, French
|
