TomZ
18d032a556
As boost testlib is extremely IDE unfriendly, as well as human unfriendly with lots of macros for basic C++ functions (like methods!!) this is better for me. But the real reason is that its just unstable. I get double deletes on some releases of boost and I'm missing plain features that all other test frameworks have. For instance a QCOMPARE shows what is expected vs what we got. Boost just fails. In QTestLib I can mark a test as "expect fail" an idea that boost tried and failed (can easily create false positives).
39 lines
1.1 KiB
C++
39 lines
1.1 KiB
C++
/*
|
|
* This file is part of the Flowee project
|
|
* Copyright (C) 2018 Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
|
|
*
|
|
* This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
|
|
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
|
|
* the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
|
|
* (at your option) any later version.
|
|
*
|
|
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
|
|
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
|
|
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
|
|
* GNU General Public License for more details.
|
|
*
|
|
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
|
|
* along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
|
|
*/
|
|
#include "TestBuffers.h"
|
|
#include "serialize_tests.h"
|
|
#include "streams_tests.h"
|
|
|
|
int main(int x, char **y)
|
|
{
|
|
int rc = 0;
|
|
{
|
|
TestBuffers test;
|
|
rc = QTest::qExec(&test);
|
|
}
|
|
if (!rc) {
|
|
Test_Serialize test;
|
|
rc = QTest::qExec(&test);
|
|
}
|
|
if (!rc) {
|
|
TestXor test;
|
|
rc = QTest::qExec(&test);
|
|
}
|
|
return rc;
|
|
}
|