Unit tests [combined summary]



Individual post summaries: Click here to read the original discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list

Published on: 2011-07-31T12:46:54+00:00


Summary:

In a brief conversation, one individual expresses frustration with the organization of tests across different forks and hopes that pull requests 363 and 442 get approved soon. The conversation seems to be related to a software development project, possibly involving changes to code or adding new features. Pull requests are typically used in this context to propose changes and have them reviewed before merging into the main codebase.John Smith contributes to the conversation by discussing an issue with the unit test framework, which does not build by default. He provides a command to demonstrate the error and suggests two ways to fix it. The first solution involves adding #define BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK to the top of test_bitcoin.cpp, enabling dynamic linking. The second solution is to link boost_unit_test_framework statically but then switch to dynamic at the end to avoid errors. Additionally, Matt suggests checking out pull requests 363 and 442 for more information.Further exploration reveals that on July 30, 2011, Matt Corallo discussed the boost testing framework implementation and proposed adding more tests. Rick Wesson suggested incentivizing improvements to the test framework through a bounty system. He also recommended using googletest as his preferred choice of C++ frameworks and shared a Wikipedia link listing various unit testing frameworks. In the same thread, JS raised an issue with the unit test framework, specifically mentioning that it did not build by default. Two potential solutions were suggested: adding #define BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK to the top of test_bitcoin.cpp or linking boost_unit_test_framework statically.Overall, the conversation revolves around the need for better organization within the testing process, frustrations with test spread across different forks, and hopes for the approval of pull requests 363 and 442. The specific details of these pull requests remain unknown, but their approval would likely address some of the concerns raised.


Updated on: 2023-08-01T02:12:17.916722+00:00