C++ unit testing framework [closed]

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:

• Header only
• Auto registration of function and method based tests
• Decomposes standard C++ expressions into LHS and RHS (so you don't need a whole family of assert macros).
• Support for nested sections within a function based fixture
• Name tests using natural language - function/ method names are generated

It doesn't do generation of stubs - but that's a fairly specialised area. I think Isolator++ is the first tool to truly pull that off. Note that Mocking/ stubbing frameworks are usually independent of unit testing frameworks. CATCH works particularly well with mock objects as test state is not passed around by context.

It also has Objective-C bindings.

[update]

Just happened back across this answer of mine from a few years ago. Thanks for all the great comments! Obviously Catch has developed on a lot in that time. It now has support for BDD style testing (given/ when/ then), tags, now in a single header, and loads of internal improvements and refinements (e.g. richer command line, clear and expressive output etc). A more up-to-date blog post is here.

Take a look at the Google C++ Testing Framework.

It's used by Google for all of their in-house C++ projects, so it must be pretty good.

http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/07/announcing-new-google-c-testing.html

http://code.google.com/p/googletest

Boost.Test does allow to run test case by name. Or test suite. Or several of them.

Boost.Test does NOT insists on implementing main, though it does make it easy to do so.

Boost.Test is NOT necessary to use as a library. It has single header variant.

I just responded to a very similar question. I ended up using Noel Llopis' UnitTest++. I liked it more than boost::test because it didn't insist on implementing the main program of the test harness with a macro - it can plug into whatever executable you create. It does suffer from the same encumbrance of boost::test in that it requires a library to be linked in. I've used CxxTest, and it does come closer than anything else in C++-land to automatically generating tests (though it requires Perl to be part of your build system to do this). C++ just does not provide the reflection hooks that the .NET languages and Java do. The MsTest tools in Visual Studio Team System - Developer's Edition will auto-generate test stubs of unmanaged C++, but the methods have to be exported from a DLL to do this, so it does not work with static libraries. Other test frameworks in the .NET world may have this ability too, but I'm not familiar with any of those. So right now we use UnitTest++ for unmanaged C++ and I'm currently deciding between MsTest and NUnit for the managed libraries.

I'm a big fan of UnitTest++, it's very lightweight, but does the job. You can run single tests there easily.