I know there are already a few questions regarding recommendations for C++ unit test frameworks, but all the answers did not help as they just recommend one of the frameworks but do not provide any information about a (feature) comparison.
I think the most interesting frameworks are CppUnit, Boost and the new Google testing framework. Has anybody done any comparison yet?
This question is related to
c++
unit-testing
cppunit
googletest
boost-test
I've just pushed my own framework, CATCH, out there. It's still under development but I believe it already surpasses most other frameworks. Different people have different criteria but I've tried to cover most ground without too many trade-offs. Take a look at my linked blog entry for a taster. My top five features are:
It also has Objective-C bindings. The project is hosted on Github
There are some relevant C++ unit testing resources at http://www.progweap.com/resources.html
API Sanity Checker — test framework for C/C++ libraries:
An automatic generator of basic unit tests for a shared C/C++ library. It is able to generate reasonable (in most, but unfortunately not all, cases) input data for parameters and compose simple ("sanity" or "shallow"-quality) test cases for every function in the API through the analysis of declarations in header files.
The quality of generated tests allows to check absence of critical errors in simple use cases. The tool is able to build and execute generated tests and detect crashes (segfaults), aborts, all kinds of emitted signals, non-zero program return code and program hanging.
Unique features in comparison with CppUnit, Boost and Google Test:
CppUTest - very nice, light weight framework with mock libraries. Worthwhile taking a closer look.
Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of unit testing frameworks, with tables that identify features supported or not.
A new player is Google Test (also known as Google C++ Testing Framework) which is pretty nice though.
#include <gtest/gtest.h>
TEST(MyTestSuitName, MyTestCaseName) {
int actual = 1;
EXPECT_GT(actual, 0);
EXPECT_EQ(1, actual) << "Should be equal to one";
}
Main features:
ASSERT_EQ(5, Foo(i)) << " where i = " << i;SCOPED_TRACE for subroutine loopsCppUTest - very nice, light weight framework with mock libraries. Worthwhile taking a closer look.
I've recently released xUnit++, specifically as an alternative to Google Test and the Boost Test Library (view the comparisons). If you're familiar with xUnit.Net, you're ready for xUnit++.
#include "xUnit++/xUnit++.h"
FACT("Foo and Blah should always return the same value")
{
Check.Equal("0", Foo()) << "Calling Foo() with no parameters should always return \"0\".";
Assert.Equal(Foo(), Blah());
}
THEORY("Foo should return the same value it was given, converted to string", (int input, std::string expected),
std::make_tuple(0, "0"),
std::make_tuple(1, "1"),
std::make_tuple(2, "2"))
{
Assert.Equal(expected, Foo(input));
}
Main features:
Assert.Equal(-1, foo(i)) << "Failed with i = " << i;Log.Debug << "Starting test"; Log.Warn << "Here's a warning";CPUnit (http://cpunit.sourceforge.net) is a framework that is similar to Google Test, but which relies on less macos (asserts are functions), and where the macros are prefixed to avoid the usual macro pitfall. Tests look like:
#include <cpunit>
namespace MyAssetTest {
using namespace cpunit;
CPUNIT_FUNC(MyAssetTest, test_stuff) {
int some_value = 42;
assert_equals("Wrong value!", 666, some_value);
}
// Fixtures go as follows:
CPUNIT_SET_UP(MyAssetTest) {
// Setting up suite here...
// And the same goes for tear-down.
}
}
They auto-register, so you need not more than this. Then it is just compile and run. I find using this framework very much like using JUnit, for those who have had to spend some time programming Java. Very nice!
A new player is Google Test (also known as Google C++ Testing Framework) which is pretty nice though.
#include <gtest/gtest.h>
TEST(MyTestSuitName, MyTestCaseName) {
int actual = 1;
EXPECT_GT(actual, 0);
EXPECT_EQ(1, actual) << "Should be equal to one";
}
Main features:
ASSERT_EQ(5, Foo(i)) << " where i = " << i;SCOPED_TRACE for subroutine loopsBoost Test Library is a very good choice especially if you're already using Boost.
// TODO: Include your class to test here.
#define BOOST_TEST_MODULE MyTest
#include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp>
BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(MyTestCase)
{
// To simplify this example test, let's suppose we'll test 'float'.
// Some test are stupid, but all should pass.
float x = 9.5f;
BOOST_CHECK(x != 0.0f);
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL((int)x, 9);
BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE(x, 9.5f, 0.0001f); // Checks differ no more then 0.0001%
}
It supports:
PS: I wrote an article about it that may help you getting started: C++ Unit Testing Framework: A Boost Test Tutorial
There are some relevant C++ unit testing resources at http://www.progweap.com/resources.html
API Sanity Checker — test framework for C/C++ libraries:
An automatic generator of basic unit tests for a shared C/C++ library. It is able to generate reasonable (in most, but unfortunately not all, cases) input data for parameters and compose simple ("sanity" or "shallow"-quality) test cases for every function in the API through the analysis of declarations in header files.
The quality of generated tests allows to check absence of critical errors in simple use cases. The tool is able to build and execute generated tests and detect crashes (segfaults), aborts, all kinds of emitted signals, non-zero program return code and program hanging.
Unique features in comparison with CppUnit, Boost and Google Test:
I've just pushed my own framework, CATCH, out there. It's still under development but I believe it already surpasses most other frameworks. Different people have different criteria but I've tried to cover most ground without too many trade-offs. Take a look at my linked blog entry for a taster. My top five features are:
It also has Objective-C bindings. The project is hosted on Github
CPUnit (http://cpunit.sourceforge.net) is a framework that is similar to Google Test, but which relies on less macos (asserts are functions), and where the macros are prefixed to avoid the usual macro pitfall. Tests look like:
#include <cpunit>
namespace MyAssetTest {
using namespace cpunit;
CPUNIT_FUNC(MyAssetTest, test_stuff) {
int some_value = 42;
assert_equals("Wrong value!", 666, some_value);
}
// Fixtures go as follows:
CPUNIT_SET_UP(MyAssetTest) {
// Setting up suite here...
// And the same goes for tear-down.
}
}
They auto-register, so you need not more than this. Then it is just compile and run. I find using this framework very much like using JUnit, for those who have had to spend some time programming Java. Very nice!
I've recently released xUnit++, specifically as an alternative to Google Test and the Boost Test Library (view the comparisons). If you're familiar with xUnit.Net, you're ready for xUnit++.
#include "xUnit++/xUnit++.h"
FACT("Foo and Blah should always return the same value")
{
Check.Equal("0", Foo()) << "Calling Foo() with no parameters should always return \"0\".";
Assert.Equal(Foo(), Blah());
}
THEORY("Foo should return the same value it was given, converted to string", (int input, std::string expected),
std::make_tuple(0, "0"),
std::make_tuple(1, "1"),
std::make_tuple(2, "2"))
{
Assert.Equal(expected, Foo(input));
}
Main features:
Assert.Equal(-1, foo(i)) << "Failed with i = " << i;Log.Debug << "Starting test"; Log.Warn << "Here's a warning";Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of unit testing frameworks, with tables that identify features supported or not.
Source: Stackoverflow.com