[ODE] Unit testing

[Tom De Muer]

J. Perkins wrote:

>On 10/24/05, Tom De Muer <tom.demuer at skynet.be> wrote:
>  
>
>>boost.test is quite solid, you can find it on www.boost.org.  The boost
>>library is also generally regarded as a reference for many things and
>>some of the libraries will make it into the new standard, so no worries
>>about quality and support.  I'm using it and quite happy with it.
>>    
>>
>
>I will take a look at this. I am concerned about adding a dependency
>of this size (the boost libraries) to the project though.
>
>I am considering taking Noel's advice to start with CppUnitLite and
>add features to suit. This would require no external dependencies, and
>minimize the amount of additional source code. Does anyone have any
>experience with CppUnitLite?
>
>Jason
>  
>
Yes, boost is quite large and unfortunately, the testing frameworks of 
boost is one of the few that needs to be compiled into a library to be 
functional, the headers alone doesn't do it.  I have no experience with 
CppUnitLite nor with the quicktest that Tyler is suggesting, but a 
single header file as in quickTest might be preferrable... one can 
always have a look at how they did it in boost when expanding ;-) (no 
pun intended Tyler :-)  One of the benefits of boost is the elaborate 
reporting abilities.  But my feeling is that the goal here is just to 
have some tests which report "ok" or "not ok" to check any patches, or not?

Tom