boost.test vs. CppUnit

Question

I\'ve been using CppUnit for quite a while now (and am happy with it). As we are using more and more parts of the boost library I had a short look on boost.test and I\'m wonderi

Answer 1

How is this less clunky than Boost.Test alternative:

class MyFixture { MyFixture() { /* setup here */} };

BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( my_test, MyFixture )
{
    BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(0, foo);
}

Macros indeed a bit longer, but this is safer and is recommended practice in C++.

I am yet to see a single technical reason to prefer Google Test (and I know quite a few to prefer Boost.Test). The rest is just your preference.

Answer 2

Do yourself a favor and go straight to Google Test, which makes CppUnit and boost::unit_test look clunky and repetitive.

For example, say you have a simple fixture:

class MyFixture : public ::testing::Test
{
  protected:
  int foo;

  virtual void SetUp() { foo = 0; }
};

To add a test to your fixture, write it!

TEST_F(MyFixture, FooStartsAtZero) {
  EXPECT_EQ(0, foo);
}

That's all you need. Notice the lack of explicit testsuite declarations or a separate agenda that repeats all your tests' names.

Compile it as in

$ g++ -o utest utest.cpp -lgtest -lgtest_main

and run your test to get

Running main() from gtest_main.cc
[==========] Running 1 test from 1 test case.
[----------] Global test environment set-up.
[----------] 1 test from MyFixture
[ RUN      ] MyFixture.FooStartsAtZero
[       OK ] MyFixture.FooStartsAtZero (0 ms)
[----------] 1 test from MyFixture (0 ms total)

[----------] Global test environment tear-down
[==========] 1 test from 1 test case ran. (0 ms total)
[  PASSED  ] 1 test.

(Run it yourself to see the nice green text for passing tests!)

This is only the beginning. Take a look at the Google Test primer and the advanced guide to see what else is possible.