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

[Bradley Lowekamp]

I am going to work on adding one more suggestion to that page based on  
some work I did for an internal project. It was based on Dart XML. The  
output of test programs were XML, tag for ints, double, and blocks of  
text. This was then compared against a baseline XML, which contained  
XML tag arguments for defining how to compare things. We may even be  
able able to override the output streams in many cases to produce XML.  
This is important because it would make porting the old test easy, and  
we get the added benefit of verifying the output of the test with type  
specific information.

More to come one the wiki, after I dig this stuff up.

Brad

On Feb 13, 2009, at 12:59 AM, Gaëtan Lehmann wrote:

>
> I was thinking no decision was made on that subject - I must have
> missed something :-)
>
>
> Le 12 févr. 09 à 23:27, Luis Ibanez a écrit :
>
>>
>> Hi Gaetan,
>>
>> My recollection from our previous discussions on other
>> testing frameworks, is that they were too heavy to be
>> made part of ITK, and that they will overlap anyways
>> with existing functionalities of CMake and CTests.
>>
>> Adding support classes for Testing to ITK, and adding
>> CMake support macros seems to be a more effective way
>> of improving the testing framework.
>>
>> The classes that we are proposing here will fill up
>> that void of tools for domain-specific testing.
>>
>> That being said,
>> This is just my recollection of the previous discussion.
>>
>> I'm probably missing many factor here....
>>
>>
>>  Luis
>>
>>
>> --------------------
>> Gaëtan Lehmann wrote:
>>> 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....
>>>>
>>>> Gaëtan Lehmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> However, wouldn't it be better to add this kind of check in a
>>>>> larger  test framework, as discussed some weeks ago?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> My mail was not clear.
>>> I wanted to talk about the unit test frameworks we discussed some
>>> time  ago, like the one listed here:
>>> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/Proposals:Increasing_ITK_Code_Coverage
>>> We need this kind of thing for numerical tests for example, so I
>>> think  it would be nice to be consistent for the new check specific
>>> to ITK.
>>> Gaëtan
>
> --
> Gaëtan Lehmann
> Biologie du Développement et de la Reproduction
> INRA de Jouy-en-Josas (France)
> tel: +33 1 34 65 29 66    fax: 01 34 65 29 09
> http://voxel.jouy.inra.fr  http://www.mandriva.org
> http://www.itk.org  http://www.clavier-dvorak.org
>
> <PGP.sig><ATT00001.txt>