Re: [Cppunit-devel] Is this project dead?
Brought to you by:
blep
From: Baptiste L. <bl...@cl...> - 2001-09-15 18:43:27
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve M. Robbins" <ste...@vi...> To: "Baptiste Lepilleur" <bl...@cl...> Cc: "Bastiaan Bakker" <bas...@li...> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [Cppunit-devel] Is this project dead? [...] > > What mess are you refering to ? > > I was thinking particularly of the documentation when I wrote that. > The main reason to introduce a "fixture" class is to simplify and > rationalize the documentation. I only got partway into incorporating > the Fixture class, and the documentation was either left as-is or > commented out. In short: it is a mess. > > It's been a while since I looked at this stuff, but my impression is > that it is quicker to just back out of the change than to go forward. [...] > > The HelperMacros needs to be update though. > > Yes, probably. I only use the CPPUNIT_TEST_SUITE, CPPUNIT_TEST, > CPPUNIT_TEST_SUITE_END, and CPPUNIT_TEST_SUITE_REGISTRATION. They > work, but I have no clue about the other macros. The guilty is the registerTests() method defined in CPPUNIT_TEST_SUITE. It take a TestFactory as a second parameter, and use that factory to instantiate the fixture. This factory is declared in the CPPUNIT_TEST_END macro. All this is done to allow a fixture that subclass another one to call its parent fixture registerTests() method while passing its factory that will instantiate the subclass fixture, and not the parent fixture, for each test case. This mecanism was introduced somewhere after CppUnit 1.5.5 I think, to replace the use of method which are ill supported (It need a workaround just to compile with VC++). Since the fixture won't be Test anymore, we won't be able to use the TestFactory as a base class for factory. That why I planned to introduce a TestFixture class. > > I was planning to introduce a TestFixtureFactory to replace the existing > > TestFactory since Test can't be used as a base class for TestFixture > > anymore. > > > > May be those change should be postponed after the release ? > > At this point, I think it would be fastest to back out of all the > fixture stuff and make the release. Reorganizing the architecture > turned out to be a much bigger job than I had expected. OK, let's postpone TestFixture stuff after the release. In addition to the doc, the examples should also be updated (they all use TestCase as a base class). > P.S. By offering to maintain CppUnit in my message yesterday, I was > in no way trying to pre-empt anyone. If Baptiste or anyone else wants > the job, they can have it. I have far too many other things to do. I > offer myself as a candidate of last resort ;-) because I do want to > see CppUnit continue development. Unfortunately, I don't have the skill to maintain a Unix project. I know how to build a project, but I barely have a clue about maintaining those configure/makefile script. Baptiste. --- Baptiste Lepilleur <gai...@fr...> http://gaiacrtn.free.fr/index.html Author of The Text Reformatter, a tool for fanfiction readers and writers. Language: English, French (Well, I'm French). |