Catch: A modern, C++-native, header-only, framework for unit tests(github.com)
github.com
Catch: A modern, C++-native, header-only, framework for unit tests
https://github.com/philsquared/Catch
30 comments
One advantage of Catch is that you can use native C++ expressions in your assertions, so instead of
AssertThat(guitar->sound(), Equals(sounds::clean));
CHECK(guitar->sound() == sounds::clean);
This isn't so much an advantage as a preference.
See https://github.com/joakimkarlsson/snowhouse#assertions
See https://github.com/joakimkarlsson/snowhouse#assertions
I found the Bandit examples rather disorienting. Can anyone explain what the "[&](){" business means?
That's the syntax for describing a lambda function.
CPP reference has a nice overview of it: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/lambda
CPP reference has a nice overview of it: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/lambda
I don't really see the advantage of Catch over http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/
UnitTest++ was written by Noel Llopis, is small, tasteful, fast, and supports fixtures (and nested fixtures) via structs and struct inheritance.
Honest question: Why would I use Catch instead?
UnitTest++ was written by Noel Llopis, is small, tasteful, fast, and supports fixtures (and nested fixtures) via structs and struct inheritance.
Honest question: Why would I use Catch instead?
I'm in the same boat (having used UnitTest++ for years) and I wonder the same, though I do see some points already:
- adding a custom main() to unittest++ was pretty messy
- unittest++ is not single-header, meaning you have to recompile all flavours everytime you switch toolsets
- that nested sections stuff looks good and readable, so even though it might be doable with unittest++, this really attracts me more
That being said, I would like to hear from the author or anyone else who can compare them. But likely I'm going to use this for the next project just to check it out.
- adding a custom main() to unittest++ was pretty messy
- unittest++ is not single-header, meaning you have to recompile all flavours everytime you switch toolsets
- that nested sections stuff looks good and readable, so even though it might be doable with unittest++, this really attracts me more
That being said, I would like to hear from the author or anyone else who can compare them. But likely I'm going to use this for the next project just to check it out.
I use Catch over UnitTest++ because I found it first and it was dead simple to get started with.
We don't do unit-testing as part of our official development process where I work, so I was looking for something that I could quickly try out and get started with in my spare moments. I read about several frameworks and Catch seemed to fit the bill best.
Looking over the UnitTest++ web site just now it appears to be nearly as easy as Catch, so if I had found it first I probably would have given it a try.
For those not currently doing any unit testing who want to get a feel for what it is all about, I highly recommend Catch as a "my first unit testing framework."
We don't do unit-testing as part of our official development process where I work, so I was looking for something that I could quickly try out and get started with in my spare moments. I read about several frameworks and Catch seemed to fit the bill best.
Looking over the UnitTest++ web site just now it appears to be nearly as easy as Catch, so if I had found it first I probably would have given it a try.
For those not currently doing any unit testing who want to get a feel for what it is all about, I highly recommend Catch as a "my first unit testing framework."
I'm a big fan of UnitTest++, but one thing that would tempt me about Catch is the single header file.
This looks hella good, I particularly am intrigued by the nested setup/teardown system. The natural assert syntax is interesting, too, amazing what macros can accomplish.
Appropriately, the first question that came to mind was, "what's the catch?" :)
Appropriately, the first question that came to mind was, "what's the catch?" :)
The macro trick is at https://github.com/philsquared/Catch/blob/785db43bb2cd64bfe7...: planting the tested expression to the right of an operator ->*, which is overloadable and allows for changing the type of the left hand side in the comparison. The rest is a "simple matter of programming". Clever but probably a bit cute - errors would look weird if the expression isn't set up as expected.
Also uses template to overload operator ->*
https://github.com/philsquared/Catch/blob/785db43bb2cd64bfe7...
https://github.com/philsquared/Catch/blob/785db43bb2cd64bfe7...
Yup. I found it interesting after a co-worker pointed it out to me because it looks and works kind of like RSpec. We are currently considering using it for a new project and it seems mature enough to give it a go.
I'm currently toying with writing a JSONReporter so we can use that as an additional test result output format and I agree, so far it seems to be a really well done project.
I'm currently toying with writing a JSONReporter so we can use that as an additional test result output format and I agree, so far it seems to be a really well done project.
The biggest turnoff to me is the sheer quantity of code (regardless of the fact that it can all be crammed into a single header file). It seems much more difficult to fix a bug in it than in something like UnitTest++.
That said, inline setup/teardown and parsing expressions in asserts seem like such natural ideas, I can't believe I haven't run across frameworks doing them before. I guess the shadow of JUnit is extremely long.
That said, inline setup/teardown and parsing expressions in asserts seem like such natural ideas, I can't believe I haven't run across frameworks doing them before. I guess the shadow of JUnit is extremely long.
It looks like a nice test framework, but it doesn't appear to help at all with the really hard problems you face with testing C++ -- isolating the unit under test for separate compilation, and the development and inclusion of mocks/stubs.
Anyone know of a really good (preferably simple and pragmatic) C++ mocking/stubbing framework to go with this?
Anyone know of a really good (preferably simple and pragmatic) C++ mocking/stubbing framework to go with this?
Why do you want to compile the unit test separately?
Because that's what makes it a unit test -- you only want the unit, the tests and any stubs/mocks in the executable. Anything more and you have an integration test on your hands.
Pulling a single unit out of a legacy codebase can be difficult, especially when you don't want to actually move, copy, or modify the source-files; stubbing out the dependencies and writing mock objects to verify your expectations of what the code should be doing are also very time-consuming.
Those are the hard parts of unit testing C++, and I wonder if anyone has found a good way of doing it (with a framework, or just a technique).
Pulling a single unit out of a legacy codebase can be difficult, especially when you don't want to actually move, copy, or modify the source-files; stubbing out the dependencies and writing mock objects to verify your expectations of what the code should be doing are also very time-consuming.
Those are the hard parts of unit testing C++, and I wonder if anyone has found a good way of doing it (with a framework, or just a technique).
Not to steal your thunder, but TUT (Templated Unit Tests) does this as well, and I've found it works very nicely even in embedded and cross-platform:
https://mrzechonek.github.io/tut-framework/
It's lightweight, easy to setup for separated tests or built in tests, and simple to use. Doesn't add anything to help with mocking, but you can do that yourself.
EDIT: To followup, I created a C++ template that leverages TUT and binfmtc that I could use to rapidly iterate with. I used it for working out solutions to problems in "Thinking in C++"; it's posted at http://hardcorehackers.com/~npsimons/Template.hh
https://mrzechonek.github.io/tut-framework/
It's lightweight, easy to setup for separated tests or built in tests, and simple to use. Doesn't add anything to help with mocking, but you can do that yourself.
EDIT: To followup, I created a C++ template that leverages TUT and binfmtc that I could use to rapidly iterate with. I used it for working out solutions to problems in "Thinking in C++"; it's posted at http://hardcorehackers.com/~npsimons/Template.hh
I really like the look of the "Sections" for managing setup/teardown of tests. I'm envious and next time I'm hacking on our in-house C# test framework I'm going to try very hard to implement them! Neat!
A coworker of mine is working on something similar: https://github.com/Kosta-Github/cute
This looks really good. Do you plan to include BeforeEach and AfterEach? I'll try this out and maybe move my projects to this.
I started working on something similar[1] a few days ago just as a proof of concept.
[1] https://github.com/cEhlen/CUT/blob/master/example.cpp
I started working on something similar[1] a few days ago just as a proof of concept.
[1] https://github.com/cEhlen/CUT/blob/master/example.cpp
A similar thing I knocked up a few years ago. Lacking in features and, well, most things - except it does have a pretty Qt based runner: http://www.rikkus.info/cplusplus-unit-testing-framework
Sorry for the off-topicness but I have to say...
I loved the project logo
I loved the project logo
This looks very intriguing. Right now I am using Google Test for my projects, but a single header file for creating tests is awesome :-)
[1] http://banditcpp.org/index.html