[Proj] Testing framework

[Mateusz Loskot]

On Wed, 30 May 2018, 22:00 Even Rouault, <even.rouault at spatialys.com> wrote:

> On mercredi 30 mai 2018 11:36:06 CEST Kurt Schwehr wrote:
> > So... Just to state my preference.  I think Google
> > Test(gtest/gmock/microbenchmark) would be great if PROJ decides to go
> that
> > way.  It's been run through the ringer with hundreds of millions of lines
> > of tests written with it and it covers most use cases without being to
> > heavy weight.  And I would be happy to contribute my tests to PROJ
> > (switching them to the PROJ license) and drop them from gdal-autotest2.
> >
> > I really don't know Catch2 so I don't really have an opinion on how well
> it
> > works.
> >
> > Either way, I will keep on doing PROJ/GEOS/GDAL testing in gtest for my
> own
> > work.
>
> I'm pretty sure for our basic needs whatever modern unit testing framework
> would do. catch2 with
> its single header was just easier to integrate, and thus passed the least
> effort principle.
>

In short term, perhaps.

I've just realised that for the API unit tests I'm planning to write almost
exactly the same tests as Kurt has already written.

To me, that's just confirmed diagnosis of the problem. For long term, it's
gonna be worse.
I know I'm not the major contributor here or contributor to be,
it's just my earlier disappointment about Kurt's test not actually
replacing my initial/old GDAL C++ tests.
This seems to be lost opportunity or waste of parallel efforts trying to
achieve the same goal - nobody runs autotest2 but Kurt, users who build
from sources do not run them, etc.

I fear that this pattern is spreading now across not one GDAL but multiple
OSGeo libraries.

Mateusz Loskot, mateusz at loskot.net
(Sent from mobile)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.maptools.org/pipermail/proj/attachments/20180530/25e6f0e7/attachment.htm