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

[Bradley Lowekamp]

I added this to the wiki as another example of what could be done.

http://www.itk.org/Wiki/Proposals:Increasing_ITK_Code_Coverage#Custom_CTest_CMake_CDash_Integration

The strengths of this approach is that it separates the execution and  
the validation (or is it verification) making the test code it's self  
smaller. It easily integrates with the CDash/CMake infrastructure (as  
it was designed to). Many existing test which print text could easily  
be migrated to this approach so that the output of the program is also  
validated and we will know when it changes. It could easily be  
expanded to compare new types. A single executable could be run with  
multiple arguments for multiple test and each test could have a  
different baseline. On the down sides this may require the most work  
to get working.

Any feedback or comments are welcome :)
Brad

On Feb 13, 2009, at 7:28 AM, Lowekamp, Bradley (NIH/NLM/LHC) [C] wrote:

> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

========================================================
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/20090213/2649d049/attachment-0001.htm>