On 7/26/2017 4:48 PM, Roger Leigh via Boost wrote:
On 26/07/17 21:28, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
On 7/26/2017 3:33 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
On 7/26/17 11:49 AM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
I couldn't make the compile-fail and run-fail targets to work so I just removed them from the cmake test suite. So if your thinking that CMake has a ways to go to be able to offer what we expect, you're right.
So you are saying that you cannot run a unit test with CMake that is meant to show a failure. Wow, what a brilliant system !
ctest itself treats a nonzero return as failure. It's pretty trivial to run a wrapper to invert the status for expected failures, and customise the test running in any way you see fit. See the EXPECT_FAIL lines in
https://github.com/apache/xerces-c/blob/f7654ee16b1dc2fb6e2b68777895c5384cd5...
and the wrapper logic in
https://github.com/apache/xerces-c/blob/f7654ee16b1dc2fb6e2b68777895c5384cd5...
as one way to do this.
That is just applicable to a run test. Current Boost Build also has compile and link tests, although I will admit I have never found uses for the link test. But in the compile test, only whether a compile is successful or not is measured, while the run test does follow CTest treating a nonzero return as failure. But is CTest really applicable as a CMake alternative to Boost testing as it now exists under Boost Build ? The documentation for CTest does not explain what it actually does amidst it enumeration of a trillion or so command line options, but why should it do that, right ?
Regards, Roger