[Uml-devel] Test Framework

[P. Fleury]

Hey all!
After a fairly long absence, I am back online. Moved from Japan to 
Europe, tooks half an eternity to get phone running, then ISPs...
I am not done through the huge heap of mail yet...

Previously, we have used CppUnit. It is quite good for unit testing of 
not too complex objects. But in itself it does not have a feature to run 
tests selectively, so unit tests should be quick runners.
I did not know about MockCpp, but we have used the concept. Basically, 
it is replacing a complex object with a mock, which can behave the same 
as the complex object, but you can artificially introduce faults. Think 
a mock for a database, where you can simulate unfound elements, empty 
lists returned, etc.
I have not used boost test, even through I have used a little of their 
library.

And for good testing frameworks of a project, note that we had about 50% 
of the code in testing routines (2 projects).

So much for my first email in 2004.
--pascal

Sebastian Stein wrote:

>I looked a little bit around what might be a good test framework for
>Umbrello. There are several products, but I think most of them are not
>really well maintained or were already stopped to been developed.
>
>
>Boost
>http://www.boost.org/libs/test/doc/index.htm
>http://www.boost.org/
>- might become a C++ standard
>- unfortunally, boost is a very big library for everything, not just testing
>- they use Boost to test the boost library
>
>CppUnit
>http://cppunit.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/FrontPage?action=show
>http://sourceforge.net/projects/cppunit
>- port of JUnit
>- not active maintained?
>
>MockCpp
>http://mockpp.sourceforge.net/
>- use mock concept (http://www.connextra.com/aboutUs/mockobjects.pdf)
>- based on EasyMock http://www.easymock.org/
>- testing classes with real objects
>- maybe too complex to understand
>
>Has anyone used one of the candidates? Are there any pros or cons? At the
>moment I would say we should go with boost...
>
>Steinchen
>  
>