Why not take an ostream as a parameter, instead of a filename. That way,
your tests can just pass in stringstreams and save your disk a whole bunch
of grinding.
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Graham Reeds <graham.re...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I think this is not possible due to SUITE simply being a namespace, but can
> it be faked maybe by changing SUITE to a class and having nested classes?
>
> Anyway, the problem I am trying to solve is we need 100% code coverage for
> our unit tests (don't get me started on the practicalities and the fact that
> it encourages you to not check return results). One of our suites works on
> an xml file and simply wraps MSXML. As such it needs a physical file to
> work on which is created via a fixture - but the file is getting created and
> torn down every test (it is just a reader, not a writer)
>
> This now uses the longest amount of time off all our suites. I was going
> to create two temp tests that run first and last to create and delete the
> file but it would be nice to have actual support available for it.
>
> G.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate
> GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the
> lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo
> _______________________________________________
> unittest-cpp-devel mailing list
> unittest-cpp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unittest-cpp-devel
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate
GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the
lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo
_______________________________________________
unittest-cpp-devel mailing list
unittest-cpp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unittest-cpp-devel
