<div dir="ltr">If we go with GoogleTest, the instructions for CMake and autotest are here:<div><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/README.md#incorporating-into-an-existing-cmake-project">https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/README.md#incorporating-into-an-existing-cmake-project</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>I've never done the CMake or autoconf setups.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Even Rouault <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:even.rouault@spatialys.com" target="_blank">even.rouault@spatialys.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> > I'm pretty sure for our basic needs whatever modern unit testing framework<br>
> > would do. catch2 with<br>
> > its single header was just easier to integrate, and thus passed the least<br>
> > effort principle.<br>
> <br>
> In short term, perhaps.<br>
> <br>
> I've just realised that for the API unit tests I'm planning to write almost<br>
> exactly the same tests as Kurt has already written.<br>
> <br>
> To me, that's just confirmed diagnosis of the problem. For long term, it's<br>
> gonna be worse.<br>
> I know I'm not the major contributor here or contributor to be,<br>
> it's just my earlier disappointment about Kurt's test not actually<br>
> replacing my initial/old GDAL C++ tests.<br>
> This seems to be lost opportunity or waste of parallel efforts trying to<br>
> achieve the same goal - nobody runs autotest2 but Kurt, users who build<br>
> from sources do not run them, etc.<br>
> <br>
> I fear that this pattern is spreading now across not one GDAL but multiple<br>
> OSGeo libraries.<br>
<br>
</span>I 'm also sad about this situation of efforts done in parallel of upstream <br>
projects. If Kurt wants to integrate his tests for the PROJ part using GTest, <br>
I'm happy with that, but that should be done quickly before I have too many <br>
catch2 tests written. In the PROJ context, that would mean having both a <br>
automake and cmake way of building GTest (probably GTest minimum code & <br>
headers integrated in proj source tree for conveniency ?). I'm not really <br>
confortable enough with build systems to do such an effort for a test <br>
framework.<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
-- <br>
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services<br>
<a href="http://www.spatialys.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.spatialys.com</a><br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Proj mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Proj@lists.maptools.org">Proj@lists.maptools.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.maptools.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/proj</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">--<div><a href="http://schwehr.org" target="_blank">http://schwehr.org</a></div></div>
</div>