Re: [Cppunit-devel] Some Questions

[Baptiste L. <gai...@fr...>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Armin" <Arm...@si...>
To: "CppUnit-Devel (E-mail)" <cpp...@li...>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 11:11 AM
Subject: [Cppunit-devel] Some Questions


> Hi all.
>
> Since the last time I had a look at the CppUnit project (v1.6.2), very
much
> has changed. Therefore I had a look at the sources this weekend. While
> looking through the code, some questions came to my mind. I hope you can
> help me out here:
>
> 1. CppUnit::Test
> Why are the find-related methods not const? Shouldn't they? I feel const
> find-methods are somewhat more intuitive, aren't they?

They all store the test in a TestPath, which store non const pointer on the
traversed test, or returns a non const pointer on a test. Since TestPath is
mainly used to run test (non const) method, it makes sense (at least I
beleive so). Let's me know if you have another point of view on the suggest.
At first I wanted those methods to be const too.

>
> 2. CppUnit::TestDecorator
> This class doesn't delegate _all_ the methods. IMHO, in order to have a
> completely transparent Decorator, it really should delegate all methods.
> What do you think of this?

I guess that makes sense. At the current time, it delegates all the virtual
pure method. Though I haven't found much use for that class yet (I used it
for the first time in the first 'writing' of DllPlugInTester were I need to
pass Test to the TestRunner without them being destroyed after the run).

> 3. CppUnit::TestCase
> Maybe we can enhance the run() method, so that it can also properly (with
> SourceLine information) catch failures in both setUp() and tearDown()?

To you means catching possible assertions made in setUp()/tearDown() ? We
don't have the SourceLine information for other exception.

>
> 4. CppUnit::TestSuite
> There is an unused m_name in this class (CppUnit::TestComposite already
> defines this member; and actually uses it ;-)). Let's remove that unused
> member?
Removed it. Left over of when I pulled up those into TestComposite.

> 5. CppUnit::TestRunner
> Neither CppUnit::TextUi::TestRunner nor the MFC-based TestRunner reuses
the
> generic TestRunner in some way. Is that intended? Or are there some
> refactorings pending? Just wondering...
TextUi can be derived from CppUnit::TestRunner (only some default listener
and outputter are added). The Mfc TestRunner could be derived too, it use a
similar 'test' suite management for added test, but the run() method does
not have anything in comon (does not take a TestResult, or a test path)?
Plus the test can be run many times... I don't really know what to do with
that one.

> I could do (2.) - (4.) my own and submit the changes; I just don't know
how
> to best submit these changes. (I don't have cvs-access here :-(.)

Fixed. You should have CVS access now.

>
> Regards
>
> Armin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cppunit-devel mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppunit-devel
>