[Insight-developers] Test framework

[Bill Lorensen]

I agree that we should look at a unit test facility.

We should start a list of requirements. For example,

1) Must support all itk platforms.
2) We must be able to distribute it with itk.
3) It must fit within our test harness facility. Recall that we try to
minimize the number of executables by combining large numbers of tests
into FooTests.cxx files.
4) It must be compatible with cmake/ctest/cdash. For example, a test
must be able to "return EXIT_SUCCESS" and "return EXIT_FAILURE".
5) It should not add complexity to an already complex testing process.
6) It must be compatible with itk's strict attention to compile
warnings and dynamic memory anlysis. In other words, it must not
produce warnings or purify defects.
7) It should have a minimal source footprint.

These are just a few requirements off the top of my head. I'll add
them to the new page when I get a chance,

Bill

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez at kitware.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> Minor correction:
>
> The text of the UnitTestCpp license:
> https://unittest-cpp.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/unittest-cpp/UnitTest++/COPYING
>
> doesn't correspond to a BSD license:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
>
> but to an MIT license:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
>
> which is a technicality after all, since both licenses could be combined
> without any conflict.   :-)
>
>
> -----
>
>
> Could you tell us more about your experience with UnitTestCpp  ?
>
> or if you prefer, could you add your comments to the Wiki page:
> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/Proposals:Increasing_ITK_Code_Coverage#UnitTestCpp
>
>
> The size of the package looks fine. It could fit neatly in
> Insight/Utilities...
>
>
>  Thanks
>
>
>     Luis
>
>
> --------------------------
> Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:29 AM, Steve M. Robbins <steve at sumost.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 03:51:56PM -0500, Bill Lorensen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Given the success of "Adopt a Bug", maybe we should initiate a "Cover a
>>>> Class".
>>>
>>> Now that I have some holiday time, I'd like to raise the issue of unit
>>> testing frameworks.
>>>
>>> The few test codes that I've looked at are all written out long-hand,
>>> without benefit of a modern unit testing framework such as CppUnit or
>>> Boost.Test.
>>
>>
>> ... or UnitTestCpp :)
>>
>> http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
>>
>> Which comes with a BSD like license ;)
>>
>>
>> https://unittest-cpp.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/unittest-cpp/UnitTest++/COPYING
>>
>> I wrote a cmakelists.txt file for it:
>>
>> http://gdcm.svn.sf.net/viewvc/gdcm/Sandbox/UnitTest%2B%2B/
>>
>> src files are very lightweight "du -sk src" return 712
>>
>>
>> 2cts
>