Bobby,
Not sure what CppUnit would give us. I'm sure it has benefits, I just
don't know what they are. We have a tests directory. I would LOVE to
be able to standardize them all to exit with an error code if they fail,
and to write a script that cycles thru them all and runs them.
Currently, they don't check their own output, but we could do something
like: test1 > test1.good
then in the script, diff the output with the .good file. What do you think?
-Troy.
Bobby Nations wrote:
> Troy,
>
> These small programs would be great candidates for unit tests for each
> of these bugs. I've used CppUnit before and could start setting them up
> if you'd like. That way, we could begin accumulating a suite of test
> cases that could be the basis for future regression test checkpoints.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bobby
>
>
> Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>
>> ok, this should be fixed.
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Now libSword hangs on the following test:
>>>
>>> #include <iostream>
>>> #include <rawld.h>
>>>
>>> void main(int argc, char **argv)
>>> {
>>> RawLD::createModule("tmp/lextest");
>>> RawLD lex("tmp/lextest");
>>>
>>> lex.SetKey("a");
>>> lex << "x";
>>>
>>> lex.SetKey("a");
>>> lex.deleteEntry();
>>> lex.SetKey("a");
>>> lex << "y";
>>>
>>> lex = BOTTOM;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
