Comparing C++ unit testing frameworks
Comparing C++ unit testing frameworks
Submitted by Roy Osherove on Thu, 30/12/2004 - 01:11. C++ | xUNITNoel Llopis writes on the TDD mailing list:
I just had to choose a unit-testing framework for a new project at work, so
I went ahead and evaluated some of the major contenders for C++: CppUnit,
Boost.Test, CppUnitLite, NanoCppUnit, Unit++, and CxxUnit.
I went ahead and evaluated some of the major contenders for C++: CppUnit,
Boost.Test, CppUnitLite, NanoCppUnit, Unit++, and CxxUnit.
If anybody is interested in checking it out, I wrote a comparison of the
frameworks and my conclusions here:
http://www.gamesfromwithin.com/articles/0412/000061.html
frameworks and my conclusions here:
http://www.gamesfromwithin.com/articles/0412/000061.html
I welcome any comments either through the list, private email, or directly
in the blog.
Cheers.
in the blog.
Cheers.
I haven't read it all through yet, but it seems pretty comprehensive and interesting.
The big winner in this article is a total surprise: CxxTest. What's the big surprise? It actually uses PERL under the convers to provide an easy to use syntax that is used as the basis for generating C++ test classes on your code. Pretty cool, actually. Here's a part on this cool finding from the article:
"After looking into a framework that tried to be different from XUnit (Unit++), I wasn't particularly looking forward to evaluating possibly the most wacky one of them all, CxxTest. I had never heard of it until a few days ago, but I knew that it required using Perl along the way to generate some C++ code. My spider senses were tingling.
Boy was I wrong!! Within minutes of using CxxTest and reading through its great documentation (the best by far), I was completely convinced this was the way to go. This came as a complete surprise to me since I was ready to leave somewhat dissatisfied and pronounce a victor between CppUnit and CppUnitLite."