[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#606373: ITP: cxxtest -- a xUnit-like framework for C/C++



On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 08:06:45PM +0100, Cleto Martin Angelina wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Cleto Martin Angelina <cleto.martin@gmail.com>
> 
> * Package name    : cxxtest
>   Version         : 3.10.1
>   Upstream Author : jaredgrubb <jaredgrubb@tigris.org> and kfitch <kfitch@tigris.org>
> * URL             : http://cxxtest.tigris.org/
> * License         : LGPLv2.1
>   Programming Lang: C++
>   Description     : a xUnit-like framework for C/C++
                      ^ an (grammar)
> 
> The following description has been taken from their website:

The description spends a lot of time saying what CxxTest *doesn't* do,
rather than what it *does* do.  This doesn't make for a very
informative description.

What would be useful:

  What does CxxTest do?

  Why would I want to use it?

  What makes it different than CppUnit?

> CxxTest's advantages over existing alternatives are that it:
> 
> * Doesn't require RTTI
> * Doesn't require member template functions
> * Doesn't require exception handling

It's not clear why any of these are "advantages".  Debian supports all
of these *Standard* C++ features well, so we have no reason to not want
them.  Note that CppUnit makes use of exception handling internally to
trap failures, and this can be a big aid in debugging because I can just
"catch throw" in gdb to diagnose failing tests.

> * Doesn't require any external libraries (including memory management,
> file/console I/O, graphics libraries)

Dependencies (or lack of) aren't really that useful in a description;
we can see this from the package dependencies.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: