[Insight-developers] Proposal: Adding ImageCheck class to Insight/Testing/Code/Common

[Bradley Lowekamp]

So the Testing directory needs to be backwardly compatible too? I am  
having difficulty figuring out what that would mean in the context.  
And the motivation.

I have looked through a dozen tests that use the FilterWatcher. I  
think it's a POINTLESS class for testing. It is not used for verifying  
anything and does not change the return value of a test (in the cases  
I looked at).


On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Stephen Aylward wrote:

> I agree that existing ones cannot be moved, but they should be  
> converted to shells that point to the main code in the new  
> directory, and moving forward the new directory should be used.
>
> Backward compatibility need not stop progress.
>
> s
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Stephen Aylward <Stephen.Aylward at kitware.com 
> > wrote:
> Insight/Testing/Tools
> Insight/Testing/Utilities
>
> Insight/Code/Testing
>
> The last one is particularly appealing to me, but I'll admit that it  
> may be confusing to the uninitiated.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Luis Ibanez  
> <luis.ibanez at kitware.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, indeed,
> this suggested class will be one of many to come in a larger
> testing framework. You could imagine similar classes for
> ImageRegions, Indices, Points, Transforms....
>
> Maybe creating a central directory for them could help to
> group them in a more visible way.
>
> We could have, for example, a directory:
>
>
>      Insight/Testing/Framework
>
> where we will move things like
>
>      * FilterWatcher
>      * PipelineMonitor
>      * ImageChecker (hopefully with a better name)
>      * ImageRegionChecker....
>
> Along with them we could also add a family of
> .cmake files defining useful CMake macros.
>
>
>  Regards,
>
>
>     Luis
>
>
> -----------------------
> Gaëtan Lehmann wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Le 12 févr. 09 à 00:34, Luis Ibanez a écrit :
>
>
>   Please let us know what you think,
>
>
> That would be a great improvement.
>
> However, wouldn't it be better to add this kind of check in a  
> larger  test framework, as discussed some weeks ago?
>
> Regards,
>
> Gaëtan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at: http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
>
>
>
> -- 
> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D.
> Chief Medical Scientist
> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office
> http://www.kitware.com
> (518) 371-3971 x300
>
>
>
> -- 
> Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D.
> Chief Medical Scientist
> Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office
> http://www.kitware.com
> (518) 371-3971 x300
> <ATT00001.txt>

========================================================
Bradley Lowekamp
Lockheed Martin Contractor for
Office of High Performance Computing and Communications
National Library of Medicine
blowekamp at mail.nih.gov


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.itk.org/mailman/private/insight-developers/attachments/20090212/7cc95434/attachment.htm>