c++ CMake project structure for lib and executable [closed] - c++

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a question regarding how to structure a c++ project and build that using CMake (inside of CLion). I am very new to c++ (I started to learn the language only two weeks ago) and to CMake (I haven't ever configured a CMake file). I do however have a bunch of experience with other programming languages and their ecosystems like Java, JavaScript, Php, and .NET—perhaps analogies with those ecosystems could help?
We're building our own (small, 2d) game and game-engine for a school project. The game engine should be shippable on its own, the game should build on our own engine. The engine will have its own dependencies (built using SDL2, thats a requirement).
I imagine the engine will become a (static) library, while the actual game will compile to an executable that depends on the engine library.
For the purposes of simplifying project management we're looking to host both the engine and the game code in the same git repository.
Given that we might want to put a math module into our engine (probaby not the case, but for the purpose of this question) I imagine a folder structure like the following:
our-project/
├── README.md
├── engine
│   ├── src
│   │   ├── math.cpp
│   │   └── math.h
│   └── test
│      └── ...
└── game
├── src
│   └── main.cpp
   └── test
      └── ...
The engine would then contain the following code:
// in math.h
namespace engine::math {
int add(int a, int b);
}
// in math.cpp
#include "math.h"
namespace engine::math {
int add(int a, int b) {
return a + b;
}
}
Let's say we wanted to make use of this engine code from our game, I imagne the following code:
// in game/main.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include "engine/math.h"
using namespace engine;
int main() {
std::cout << math::add(10, 1) << std::endl;
}
Questions
How do I setup CMake so that I can both build the engine (static library) individually, and build the game (executable) that depends on that same engine?
How should I manage the engines header files? How do I make them accesible to the game code? Should I use a different structure for the header files?
Is this folder structure manageable? Should I consider a different approach?

You declare separate CMake targets, i.e., in engine/src/CMakeLists.txt:
add_library(engine
math.cpp)
while in game/src/CMakeLists.txt, you have
add_executable(my-game
main.cpp)
target_link_libraries(my-game
PRIVATE
engine)
When using e.g. make, you can build the targets individually by
make engine # build only the engine, not the executable
make my-game # build engine if necessary, then build executable
Separate test targets make sense, too.
Include flags in CMake are propagated as follows.
target_include_directories(engine
INTERFACE
${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR})
The above setup propagates an include directory to all targets that link against engine. This is simple, but has a drawback: you can't distinguish between public headers and implementation details. As an alternative, you could have a directory engine/src/public/engine with all public headers that shall be used by the game:
target_include_directories(engine
INTERFACE
${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/public)
target_include_directories(engine
PRIVATE
${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/public/engine)
This way, client code in game uses #include "engine/math.h", while in engine, you can just go with #include "math.h". I like such a setup, as it's easily visible what is the interface of a library and what is its implementation. But it's also somewhat a matter of taste.
Again opinionated. But I think this is a good directory structure. Stick to it.

Related

Transitive Object Libraries in CMake

Question: Is it possible to join multiple object libraries into a single larger object library?
Consider the following simple project. libA.cpp is compiled into an object library LibA.Obj, and libB.cpp is compiled into an object library LibB.Obj. I want to have an object library, LibAB.Obj, that consists of both LibA.Obj and LibB.Obj, and I want to link against it to produce a single shared library.
MyProject
├── CMakeLists.txt
└── src
├── libA.cpp
└── libB.cpp
If I want to link two libraries, A and B, into a single unit, I can do that by declaring them as object libraries:
cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.21)
project(ObjectLibExample)
add_library(LibA.Obj OBJECT src/libA.cpp)
add_library(LibB.Obj OBJECT src/libB.cpp)
add_library(LibAB SHARED $<TARGET_OBJECTS:LibA.Obj> $<TARGET_OBJECTS:LibB.Obj>)
This works as expected, and everything builds.
For reasons I will soon explain, I would like to merge multiple object libraries together into a single unit:
cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.21)
project(ObjectLibExample)
add_library(LibA.Obj OBJECT src/libA.cpp)
add_library(LibB.Obj OBJECT src/libB.cpp)
# Using LibAB.Obj as a source should be equivilant to using both LibA.Obj and LibB.Obj
add_library(LibAB.Obj OBJECT $<TARGET_OBJECTS:LibA.Obj> $<TARGET_OBJECTS:LibB.Obj>)
add_library(LibAB SHARED $<TARGET_OBJECTS:LibAB.Obj>)
Here, LibAB.Obj should be an object library collecting the sources of both LibA.Obj and LibB.Obj.
For some reason, CMake acts as though LibAB.Obj provides no sources, and the build fails.
Why does this happen?
Is this a bug?
What workarounds are there?
Motivation / Background
I am currently working on re-organizing an existing project to have a modular structure. It will have modules A, B, and C, each of which will have submodules.
You can imagine the directory structure looking like this:
MyProject
├── A
│   ├── A1
│   ├── A2
│   └── A3
├── B
│   ├── B1
│   ├── B2
│   └── B3
└── C
├── C1
├── C2
└── C3
Each submodule represents a library that forms a part of a greater whole, and the build system should link everything together into a single library at the end.
The reason for this structure is twofold:
each submodule forms a cohesive unit. It has it's own tests, benchmarks, and example code
submodules should provide a clean API for their functionality, even if the internals are kind of hairy.
For example, MyProject/A/A1 looks like this:
MyProject/A/A1
├── bench
├── CMakeLists.txt
├── examples
├── src
└── test
My initial plan was to have each module contain an object library linking all of it's respective submodules, with all modules being statically linked together at root to produce a single library, MyProject.so.
Each submodule would also produce a library specific to that submodule (eg, MyProject/A/A1 would produce MyProject.A.A1.so), against which tests, benchmark code, and examples would be linked. This would allow faster iteration, without needing to re-build the entire project.
Unfortunately, this initial approach failed, for the reasons discussed above.
According to the documentation of add_library(OBJECT):
An object library compiles source files but does not archive or link their object files into a library.
[...]
Object libraries may contain only sources that compile, header files, and other files that would not affect linking of a normal library (e.g. .txt).
You haven't provided any sources that would compile, so a fatal error indicating that the object library isn't used in the intended way is expected.
A workaround possible starting cmake 3.12 would be to create an INTERFACE library and linking the object libraries with INTERFACE visibility.
add_library(LibAB INTERFACE)
target_link_libraries(LibAB.Obj INTERFACE LibA.Obj LibB.Obj)
add_library(LibAB SHARED)
target_link_libraries(LibAB PRIVATE LibAB.Obj)
This does prevent you from using $<TARGET_OBJECTS:LibAB.Obj> though.

How to organize unit tests in googletest efficiently

I am currently thinking about restructuring the unit tests in my project. I use Googletest as testing framework. My project consists of several shared libraries that are built and tested together.
As the number of unit tests grow, I find the organization of unit tests in google test getting harder and harder because I include a ton of header files where the tests live. This leads to a huge object size while building the project and I already had to switch on big object compilation, to make the build succeed.
Think of the project structure like shown below
root
├── src
│   └── libs
| ├── libA
| ├── libB
| ├── ....
│   └── libN  
└── tests
└── unit_tests
├── libA
| ├──tst_group1.h
| ├──tst_group2.h
| └──tst_group3.h
├── libB
| ├──tst_group1.h
| ├──tst_group2.h
| └──tst_group3.h
├── ....
├── libN
└── main.cpp
And my main.cpp looking something like this:
#include "libA/tst_group1.h"
#include "libA/tst_group2.h"
#include "libA/tst_group3.h"
#include "libB/tst_group1.h"
#include "libB/tst_group2.h"
#include "libB/tst_group3.h"
[...]
#include <gmock/gmock-matchers.h>
#include <gmock/gmock.h>
#include <gtest/gtest.h>
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
:testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv);
::testing::InitGoogleTest();
return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
}
I really want to have some kind of modularization here, where I can split the code in a way, that I end up having separate compilation units for the different modules, so that I do not have this ugly big object compilation issue, however I have no clue what's the correct way to do that with googletest, where all those test macros have to be present in header files.
Can anyone share some advice?
If you look at the samples provided in the sources, the test macros shouldn't be present in header files.
According to this answer :
The RUN_ALL_TESTS() macro run all instances of test class dynamically, which means it got the test cases during run time.
So basically, your main should include only the gtest headers, and your tests should be in .cpp files, with every test only including the libs that you need.

How should I organize my directory structure when using CMake with C++ inheritance? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Currently I have a directory structure that looks like the following
.
├── CMakeLists.txt
├── Base
│   ├── CMakeLists.txt
│   ├── include
│   │   └── base.h
│   └── src
│   └── base.cpp
├── Derived
│   ├── CMakeLists.txt
│   ├── include
│   │   └── derived.h
│   └── src
│   └── derived.cpp
└── src
   └── main.cpp
and the CMakeLists.txt files looking like
./CMakeLists.txt
cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.1)
set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 11)
project(MyProj)
add_subdirectory(Base)
add_subdirectory(Derived)
add_executable(main src/main.cpp)
target_link_libraries(main Base)
target_link_libraries(main Derived)
./Base/CMakeLists.txt
add_library(Base STATIC src/base.cpp)
target_include_directories(Base PUBLIC include)
./Derived/CMakeLists.txt
add_library(Derived STATIC src/derived.cpp)
target_include_directories(Derived PUBLIC include)
target_link_libraries(Derived Base)
I want to know if this is an appropriate way to structure a CMake project when using inheritance in C++. If there is a more idiomatic way to structure this, I am open to suggestions.
If your intention is to build two libraries, and an executable, then that is what your structure achieves. I would however recommend thinking why you are doing that, and perhaps consider whether it would be simpler to instead have both classes in a single library.
If I keep extending this, say make another class that inherits from Derived, then I have to make a new CMakeLists.txt file then link and include against these files. I don't have a problem doing this, but it does not seem very maintainable for larger projects
No, you don't have to make a new CMakeLists.txt unless you add a new target. You don't necessarily need more than a single target for a project.
A target (be it executable or a library) is not limited to having only one translation unit.
My personal preference for small project is three (or two) targets: A library containing all functionality, a main executable with int main() that does nothing except invoke the library (if the project is an executable rather than just the library), and a test executable with int main() from a test framework. The library can optionally be split to smaller pieces if it has parts that are reusable in other projects.
set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 11)
prefer target specific properties instead:
set_target_properties(
Base PROPERTIES
CXX_STANDARD 11
# use unless you also support older standards
CXX_STANDARD_REQUIRED ON
)
The dependees will inherit the property, but you can set it explicitly in each for potentially lesser chance of breakage in case you later decide to not use the base library.
Creating a library for each class is overkill and might slow down compilation on some build systems.
On some of my projects, I have over 300 types, not counting templates and lambdas. I cannot imagine creating a library for each classes.
I want to know if this is an appropriate way to structure a CMake project when using inheritance in C++
The features you are using should not change how the code is organised physically. Instead, base your file layout in logical self contained part of your code with clear dependencies between each parts.
The only nitpick: Use this form to link libraries together:
target_link_libraries(main PUBLIC Base) # or private
The rest of your CMake make good use of the target based API. The only thing I would change would be to be less fine grained in term of what constitute a library.

Problems when linking my main output library with my test executable

I'm building a "framework" library which one I'm trying to integrate Google Tests. It's a pretty small library, that at the end gives me a .so or .dll file.
When I was starting to tests my library, I found a configuration (details below) that works fine on my CMakeFile at my linux environment. But when I try to run the same project using a MSBuild for MSVC14, it gives me a link error
LINK : fatal error LNK1104: cannot open file '..\src\Debug\foobar.lib'
I'm thinking that my cmake is guessing the lib name wrong (foobar.lib instead of foobar.dll), but I couldn't find why nor how to fix it.
Also, I don't know if this is really the best way for me testing this. What I want is a way to test the whole framework (initializing, creating stuffs, checking returns etc..) without a main.cpp file, and meanwhile start to create the unit tests.
So, my question is.. What am I doing wrong that at the Windows environment the linker does not find the foobar lib built by src/CMakeLists.txt? (I checked, and the lib is created in "src/Debug/foobar.dll", same dir that appears at the error, and works fine)
Also, is my method so wrong that windows just don't wanna deal with? lol I mean, it's wrong to do something like I'm trying to do? It's not that I do not want to make unit tests, which I'll be doing soon, but I really like to build and try my lib without using any external exec binary before I starting to do that.
Thanks!
OBS:
My google tests is working fine both in linux and windows;
I can run the test FooA if I remove the FooBar test, which is linking to foobar lib.
Using my linux environment this configuration works perfectly.
Update:
As #vre suggested, I found the macro __declspec(dllexport) and put it before my FooBar class name and the compilation passed, but it crashes when I run and throws this warning when compiling:
warning C4251: 'FooBar::_impl': class 'std::unique_ptr<FooBar::FooBarImpl,
std::default_delete<_Ty>>' needs to have dll-interface to be used by clients of class 'FooBar'
That's because I have a PImp implementation of the FooBar class. So, I have this:
class __declspec(dllexport) FooBar
{
...
private:
class FooBarImpl;
std::unique_ptr<FooBarImpl> _impl;
}
I don't really know what it means yet. Trying to find out why it crashes.
My project has this file tree:
├── CMakeLists.txt
├── include
| ├── FooBar.hpp
├── src
│   ├── CMakeLists.txt
│   ├── FooBar.cpp
│   ├── FooA
│   │   └── CMakeLists.txt
│   ├── FooB
│   │   └── CMakeLists.txt
│   └── FooC
│   └── CMakeLists.txt
└── test
├── CMakeLists.txt
├── FooBar
│   └── FooBarTest.hpp
├── FooA
│   ├── FakeBar.hpp
│   ├── FooATest.hpp
│   └── mockObj.hpp
My main CMakeLists.txt is like this:
...
set(FOOBAR_INCLUDE "${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR}/include/FooBar.hpp")
# Include src main CMakeLists
add_subdirectory("${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR}/src")
# Include tests if enabled
if (test)
add_subdirectory("${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR}/test")
endif ()
My src/CMakeLists.txt:
...
set(FOOBAR_SOURCES "FooBar.cpp")
# Build
add_library(foobar SHARED ${FOOBAR_SOURCES} ${FOOBAR_INCLUDE})
# Links the library with components.
target_link_libraries(foobar FooA FooB FooC)
And my test/CMakeLists.txt is something like this:
enable_testing()
# Include directories used for testing.
include_directories("${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR}/src"
"${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR}/include"
"FooA/"
"FooBar/")
# Include the files for testing.
set(INCLUDE_TESTS "${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR}/src/FooA/FooA.cpp"
"${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR}/src/FooA/Bar.cpp")
# Include the test source files.
set(TEST_SOURCES "main.cpp"
"FooBar/JepluTest.hpp"
"FooA/FakeBar.hpp"
"FooA/FooATest.hpp")
# Build
add_executable(foobar-test ${TEST_SOURCES} ${INCLUDE_TESTS})
# Links the library with components. (HERE IS WHERE OCCURS THE PROBLEM)
target_link_libraries(foobar-test gtest foobar)
# Not really important right now
add_test(NAME foobar-test COMMAND foobar-test)
Reformulating and enhancing my previous comments:
You need to export symbols from the DLL on Windows otherwise no import library is created, and that's what MSBuild is complaining about.
First you should add to your FooBar.hpp header the following construct:
#ifdef WIN32
#ifdef FOOBARLIB_EXPORTS
#define FOOBARLIB_API __declspec(dllexport)
#else
#define FOOBARLIB_API __declspec(dllimport)
#endif
#else
#define FOOBARLIB_API
#endif
Later mark your classes, functions and symbols to be exported as follows:
void FOOBARLIB_API foobar(char*)
{
}
In your CMakeLists.txt after creating the shared library target foobar add the line:
target_compile_definitions(foobar PRIVATE FOOBARLIB_EXPORTS)
EDIT:
As #vre commented, these CMake properties are also needed because Windows does not load a DLL located in another folder, causing a crash when it tries to run the executable. So, when a DLL is build and the CMAKE_RUNTIME_OUTPUT_DIRECTORY variable is set, the output library goes to the same directory as the test .exe file.
set(CMAKE_ARCHIVE_OUTPUT_DIRECTORY ${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/lib)
set(CMAKE_LIBRARY_OUTPUT_DIRECTORY ${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/lib)
set(CMAKE_RUNTIME_OUTPUT_DIRECTORY ${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/bin)

C++ project organisation (with gtest, cmake and doxygen)

I am new to programming in general so I decided that I would start by making a simple vector class in C++. However I would like to get in to good habits from the start rather than trying to modify my workflow later on.
I currently have only two files vector3.hpp and vector3.cpp. This project will slowly start to grow (making it much more of a general linear algebra library) as I become more familiar with everything, so I would like to adopt a "standard" project layout to make life easier later on. So after looking around I have found two ways to go about organizing hpp and cpp files, the first being:
project
└── src
├── vector3.hpp
└── vector3.cpp
and the second being:
project
├── inc
│ └── project
│ └── vector3.hpp
└── src
└── vector3.cpp
Which would you recommend and why?
Secondly I would like to use the Google C++ Testing Framework for unit testing my code as it seems fairly easy to use. Do you suggest bundling this with my code, for example in a inc/gtest or contrib/gtest folder? If bundled, do you suggest using the fuse_gtest_files.py script to reduce the number or files, or leaving it as is? If not bundled how is this dependency handled?
When it comes to writing tests, how are these generally organized? I was thinking to have one cpp file for each class (test_vector3.cpp for example) but all compiled in to one binary so that they can all be run together easily?
Since the gtest library is generally build using cmake and make, I was thinking that it would make sense for my project to also be built like this? If I decided to use the following project layout:
├── CMakeLists.txt
├── contrib
│ └── gtest
│ ├── gtest-all.cc
│ └── gtest.h
├── docs
│ └── Doxyfile
├── inc
│ └── project
│ └── vector3.cpp
├── src
│ └── vector3.cpp
└── test
└── test_vector3.cpp
How would the CMakeLists.txt have to look so that it can either build just the library or the library and the tests? Also I have seen quite a few projects that have a build and a bin directory. Does the build happen in the build directory and then the binaries moved out in to the bin directory? Would the binaries for the tests and the library live in the same place? Or would it make more sense to structure it as follows:
test
├── bin
├── build
└── src
└── test_vector3.cpp
I would also like to use doxygen to document my code. Is it possible to get this to automatically run with cmake and make?
Sorry for so many questions, but I have not found a book on C++ that satisfactorily answers these type of questions.
C++ build systems are a bit of a black art and the older the project
the more weird stuff you can find so it is not surprising that a lot
of questions come up. I'll try to walk through the questions one by one and mention some general things regarding building C++ libraries.
Separating headers and cpp files in directories. This is only
essential if you are building a component that is supposed to be used
as a library as opposed to an actual application. Your headers are the
basis for users to interact with what you offer and must be
installed. This means they have to be in a subdirectory (no-one wants
lots of headers ending up in top-level /usr/include/) and your
headers must be able to include themselves with such a setup.
└── prj
├── include
│   └── prj
│   ├── header2.h
│   └── header.h
└── src
└── x.cpp
works well, because include paths work out and you can use easy
globbing for install targets.
Bundling dependencies: I think this largely depends on the ability of
the build system to locate and configure dependencies and how
dependent your code on a single version is. It also depends on how
able your users are and how easy is the dependency to install on their
platform. CMake comes with a find_package script for Google
Test. This makes things a lot easier. I would go with bundling only
when necessary and avoid it otherwise.
How to build: Avoid in-source builds. CMake makes out of source-builds
easy and it makes life a lot easier.
I suppose you also want to use CTest to run tests for your system (it
also comes with build-in support for GTest). An important decision for
directory layout and test organization will be: Do you end up with
subprojects? If so, you need some more work when setting up CMakeLists
and should split your subprojects into subdirectories, each with its
own include and src files. Maybe even their own doxygen runs and
outputs (combining multiple doxygen projects is possible, but not easy
or pretty).
You will end up with something like this:
└── prj
├── CMakeLists.txt <-- (1)
├── include
│   └── prj
│   ├── header2.hpp
│   └── header.hpp
├── src
│   ├── CMakeLists.txt <-- (2)
│   └── x.cpp
└── test
├── CMakeLists.txt <-- (3)
├── data
│   └── testdata.yyy
└── testcase.cpp
where
(1) configures dependencies, platform specifics and output paths
(2) configures the library you are going to build
(3) configures the test executables and test-cases
In case you have sub-components I would suggest adding another hierarchy and use the tree above for each sub-project. Then things get tricky, because you need to decide if sub-components search and configure their dependencies or if you do that in the top-level. This should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Doxygen: After you managed to go through the configuration dance of
doxygen, it is trivial to use CMake add_custom_command to add a
doc target.
This is how my projects end up and I have seen some very similar projects, but of course this is no cure all.
Addendum At some point you will want to generate a config.hpp
file that contains a version define and maybe a define to some version
control identifier (a Git hash or SVN revision number). CMake has
modules to automate finding that information and to generate
files. You can use CMake's configure_file to replace variables in a
template file with variables defined inside the CMakeLists.txt.
If you are building libraries you will also need an export define to
get the difference between compilers right, e.g. __declspec on MSVC
and visibility attributes on GCC/clang.
As a starter, there are some conventional names for directories that you cannot ignore, these are based on the long tradition with the Unix file system. These are:
trunk
├── bin : for all executables (applications)
├── lib : for all other binaries (static and shared libraries (.so or .dll))
├── include : for all header files
├── src : for source files
└── doc : for documentation
It is probably a good idea to stick to this basic layout, at least at the top-level.
About splitting the header files and source files (cpp), both schemes are fairly common. However, I tend to prefer keeping them together, it is just more practical on day-to-day tasks to have the files together. Also, when all the code is under one top-level folder, i.e., the trunk/src/ folder, you can notice that all the other folders (bin, lib, include, doc, and maybe some test folder) at the top level, in addition to the "build" directory for an out-of-source build, are all folders that contain nothing more than files that are generated in the build process. And thus, only the src folder needs to be backed up, or much better, kept under a version control system / server (like Git or SVN).
And when it comes to installing your header files on the destination system (if you want to eventually distribute your library), well, CMake has a command for installing files (implicitly creates a "install" target, to do "make install") which you can use to put all the headers into the /usr/include/ directory. I just use the following cmake macro for this purpose:
# custom macro to register some headers as target for installation:
# setup_headers("/path/to/header/something.h" "/relative/install/path")
macro(setup_headers HEADER_FILES HEADER_PATH)
foreach(CURRENT_HEADER_FILE ${HEADER_FILES})
install(FILES "${SRCROOT}${CURRENT_HEADER_FILE}" DESTINATION "${INCLUDEROOT}${HEADER_PATH}")
endforeach(CURRENT_HEADER_FILE)
endmacro(setup_headers)
Where SRCROOT is a cmake variable that I set to the src folder, and INCLUDEROOT is cmake variable that I configure to wherever to headers need to go. Of course, there are many other ways to do this, and I'm sure my way is not the best. The point is, there is no reason to split the headers and sources just because only the headers need to be installed on the target system, because it is very easy, especially with CMake (or CPack), to pick out and configure the headers to be installed without having to have them in a separate directory. And this is what I have seen in most libraries.
Quote: Secondly I would like to use the Google C++ Testing Framework for unit testing my code as it seems fairly easy to use. Do you suggest bundling this with my code, for example in a "inc/gtest" or "contrib/gtest" folder? If bundled, do you suggest using the fuse_gtest_files.py script to reduce the number or files, or leaving it as is? If not bundled how is this dependency handled?
Don't bundle dependencies with your library. This is generally a pretty horrible idea, and I always hate it when I'm stuck trying to build a library that did that. It should be your last resort, and beware of the pitfalls. Often, people bundle dependencies with their library either because they target a terrible development environment (e.g., Windows), or because they only support an old (deprecated) version of the library (dependency) in question. The main pitfall is that your bundled dependency might clash with already installed versions of the same library / application (e.g., you bundled gtest, but the person trying to build your library already has a newer (or older) version of gtest already installed, then the two might clash and give that person a very nasty headache). So, as I said, do it at your own risk, and I would say only as a last resort. Asking the people to install a few dependencies before being able to compile your library is a much lesser evil than trying to resolve clashes between your bundled dependencies and existing installations.
Quote: When it comes to writing tests, how are these generally organised? I was thinking to have one cpp file for each class (test_vector3.cpp for example) but all compiled in to one binary so that they can all be run together easily?
One cpp file per class (or small cohesive group of classes and functions) is more usual and practical in my opinion. However, definitely, don't compile them all into one binary just so that "they can all be run together". That's a really bad idea. Generally, when it comes to coding, you want to split things up as much as it is reasonable to do so. In the case of unit-tests, you don't want one binary to run all the tests, because that means that any little change that you make to anything in your library is likely to cause a near total recompilation of that unit-test program, and that's just minutes / hours lost waiting for recompilation. Just stick to a simple scheme: 1 unit = 1 unit-test program. Then, use either a script or a unit-test framework (such as gtest and/or CTest) to run all the test programs and report to failure/success rates.
Quote: Since the gtest library is generally build using cmake and make, I was thinking that it would make sense for my project to also be built like this? If I decided to use the following project layout:
I would rather suggest this layout:
trunk
├── bin
├── lib
│ └── project
│ └── libvector3.so
│ └── libvector3.a products of installation / building
├── docs
│ └── Doxyfile
├── include
│ └── project
│ └── vector3.hpp
│_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
│
├── src
│ └── CMakeLists.txt
│ └── Doxyfile.in
│ └── project part of version-control / source-distribution
│ └── CMakeLists.txt
│ └── vector3.hpp
│ └── vector3.cpp
│ └── test
│ └── test_vector3.cpp
│_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
│
├── build
└── test working directories for building / testing
└── test_vector3
A few things to notice here. First, the sub-directories of your src directory should mirror the sub-directories of your include directory, this is just to keep things intuitive (also, try to keep your sub-directory structure reasonably flat (shallow), because deep nesting of folders is often more of a hassle than anything else). Second, the "include" directory is just an installation directory, its contents are just whatever headers are picked out of the src directory.
Third, the CMake system is intended to be distributed over the source sub-directories, not as one CMakeLists.txt file at the top-level. This keeps things local, and that's good (in the spirit of splitting things up into independent pieces). If you add a new source, a new header, or a new test program, all you need is to edit one small and simple CMakeLists.txt file in the sub-directory in question, without affecting anything else. This also allows you to restructure the directories with ease (CMakeLists are local and contained in the sub-directories being moved). The top-level CMakeLists should contain most of the top-level configurations, such as setting up destination directories, custom commands (or macros), and finding packages installed on the system. The lower-level CMakeLists should contain only simple lists of headers, sources, and unit-test sources, and the cmake commands that register them to compilation targets.
Quote: How would the CMakeLists.txt have to look so that it can either build just the library or the library and the tests?
Basic answer is that CMake allows you to specifically exclude certain targets from "all" (which is what is built when you type "make"), and you can also create specific bundles of targets. I can't do a CMake tutorial here, but it is fairly straight forward to find out by yourself. In this specific case, however, the recommended solution is, of course, to use CTest, which is just an additional set of commands that you can use in the CMakeLists files to register a number of targets (programs) that are marked as unit-tests. So, CMake will put all the tests in a special category of builds, and that is exactly what you asked for, so, problem solved.
Quote: Also I have seen quite a few projects that have a build ad a bin directory. Does the build happen in the build directory and then the binaries moved out in to the bin directory? Would the binaries for the tests and the library live in the same place? Or would it make more sense to structure it as follows:
Having a build directory outside the source ("out-of-source" build) is really the only sane thing to do, it is the de facto standard these days. So, definitely, have a separate "build" directory, outside the source directory, just as the CMake people recommend, and as every programmer I have ever met does. As for the bin directory, well, that is a convention, and it is probably a good idea to stick to it, as I said in the beginning of this post.
Quote: I would also like to use doxygen to document my code. Is it possible to get this to automatically run with cmake and make?
Yes. It is more than possible, it is awesome. Depending on how fancy you want to get, there are several possibilities. CMake does have a module for Doxygen (i.e., find_package(Doxygen)) which allows you to register targets that will run Doxygen on some files. If you want to do more fancy things, like updating the version number in the Doxyfile, or automatically entering a date / author stamps for source files and so on, it is all possible with a bit of CMake kung-fu. Generally, doing this will involve that you keep a source Doxyfile (e.g., the "Doxyfile.in" that I put in the folder layout above) which has tokens to be found and replaced by CMake's parsing commands. In my top-level CMakeLists file, you will find one such piece of CMake kung-fu that does a few fancy things with cmake-doxygen together.
Structuring the project
I would generally favour the following:
├── CMakeLists.txt
|
├── docs/
│ └── Doxyfile
|
├── include/
│ └── project/
│ └── vector3.hpp
|
├── src/
└── project/
└── vector3.cpp
└── test/
└── test_vector3.cpp
This means that you have a very clearly defined set of API files for your library, and the structure means that clients of your library would do
#include "project/vector3.hpp"
rather than the less explicit
#include "vector3.hpp"
I like the structure of the /src tree to match that of the /include tree, but that's personal preference really. However, if your project expands to contain subdirectories within /include/project, it would generally help to match those inside the /src tree.
For the tests, I favour keeping them "close" to the files they test, and if you do end up with subdirectories within /src, it's a pretty easy paradigm for others to follow if they want to find a given file's test code.
Testing
Secondly I would like to use the Google C++ Testing Framework for unit testing my code as it seems fairly easy to use.
Gtest is indeed simple to use and is fairly comprehensive in terms of its capabilities. It can be used alongside gmock very easily to extend its capabilities, but my own experiences with gmock have been less favourable. I'm quite prepared to accept that this may well be down to my own shortcomings, but gmock tests tends to be more difficult to create, and much more fragile / difficult to maintain. A big nail in the gmock coffin is that it really doesn't play nice with smart pointers.
This is a very trivial and subjective answer to a huge question (which probably doesn't really belong on S.O.)
Do you suggest bundling this with my code, for example in a "inc/gtest" or "contrib/gtest" folder? If bundled, do you suggest using the fuse_gtest_files.py script to reduce the number or files, or leaving it as is? If not bundled how is this dependency handled?
I prefer using CMake's ExternalProject_Add module. This avoids you having to keep gtest source code in your repository, or installing it anywhere. It is downloaded and built in your build tree automatically.
See my answer dealing with the specifics here.
When it comes to writing tests, how are these generally organised? I was thinking to have one cpp file for each class (test_vector3.cpp for example) but all compiled in to one binary so that they can all be run together easily?
Good plan.
Building
I'm a fan of CMake, but as with your test-related questions, S.O. is probably not the best place to ask for opinions on such a subjective issue.
How would the CMakeLists.txt have to look so that it can either build just the library or the library and the tests?
add_library(ProjectLibrary <All library sources and headers>)
add_executable(ProjectTest <All test files>)
target_link_libraries(ProjectTest ProjectLibrary)
The library will appear as a target "ProjectLibrary", and the test suite as a target "ProjectTest". By specifying the library as a dependency of the test exe, building the test exe will automatically cause the library to be rebuilt if it is out of date.
Also I have seen quite a few projects that have a build ad a bin directory. Does the build happen in the build directory and then the binaries moved out in to the bin directory? Would the binaries for the tests and the library live in the same place?
CMake recommends "out-of-source" builds, i.e. you create your own build directory outside the project and run CMake from there. This avoids "polluting" your source tree with build files, and is highly desirable if you're using a vcs.
You can specify that the binaries are moved or copied to a different directory once built, or that they are created by default in another directory, but there's generally no need. CMake provides comprehensive ways to install your project if desired, or make it easy for other CMake projects to "find" the relevant files of your project.
With regards to CMake's own support for finding and executing gtest tests, this would largely be inappropriate if you build gtest as part of your project. The FindGtest module is really designed to be used in the case where gtest has been built separately outside of your project.
CMake provides its own test framework (CTest), and ideally, every gtest case would be added as a CTest case.
However, the GTEST_ADD_TESTS macro provided by FindGtest to allow easy addition of gtest cases as individual ctest cases is somewhat lacking in that it doesn't work for gtest's macros other than TEST and TEST_F. Value- or Type-parameterised tests using TEST_P, TYPED_TEST_P, etc. aren't handled at all.
The problem doesn't have an easy solution that I know of. The most robust way to get a list of gtest cases is to execute the test exe with the flag --gtest_list_tests. However, this can only be done once the exe is built, so CMake can't make use of this. Which leaves you with two choices; CMake must try to parse C++ code to deduce the names of the tests (non-trivial in the extreme if you want to take into account all gtest macros, commented-out tests, disabled tests), or test cases are added by hand to the CMakeLists.txt file.
I would also like to use doxygen to document my code. Is it possible to get this to automatically run with cmake and make?
Yes - although I have no experience on this front. CMake provides FindDoxygen for this purpose.
In addition to the other (excellent) answers, I am going to describe a structure I've been using for relatively large-scale projects.
I am not going to address the subquestion about Doxygen, since I would just repeat what is said in the other answers.
Rationale
For modularity and maintainability, the project is organized as a set of small units.
For clarity, let's name them UnitX, with X = A, B, C, ... (but they can have any general name).
The directory structure is then organized to reflect this choice, with the possibility to group units if necessary.
Solution
The basic directory layout is the following (content of units is detailed later on):
project
├── CMakeLists.txt
├── UnitA
├── UnitB
├── GroupA
│ └── CMakeLists.txt
│ └── GroupB
│ └── CMakeLists.txt
│ └── UnitC
│ └── UnitD
│ └── UnitE
project/CMakeLists.txt could contain the following:
cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.0.2)
project(project)
enable_testing() # This will be necessary for testing (details below)
add_subdirectory(UnitA)
add_subdirectory(UnitB)
add_subdirectory(GroupA)
and project/GroupA/CMakeLists.txt:
add_subdirectory(GroupB)
add_subdirectory(UnitE)
and project/GroupB/CMakeLists.txt:
add_subdirectory(UnitC)
add_subdirectory(UnitD)
Now to the structure of the different units (let's take, as an example, UnitD)
project/GroupA/GroupB/UnitD
├── README.md
├── CMakeLists.txt
├── lib
│ └── CMakeLists.txt
│ └── UnitD
│ └── ClassA.h
│ └── ClassA.cpp
│ └── ClassB.h
│ └── ClassB.cpp
├── test
│ └── CMakeLists.txt
│ └── ClassATest.cpp
│ └── ClassBTest.cpp
│ └── [main.cpp]
To the different components:
I like having source (.cpp) and headers (.h) in the same folder. This avoids a duplicate directory hierarchy, makes maintenance easier. For installation, it is no problem (especially with CMake) to just filter the header files.
The role of the directory UnitD is to later on allow including files with #include <UnitD/ClassA.h>. Also, when installing this unit, you can just copy the directory structure as is. Note that you can also organize your source files in subdirectories.
I like a README file to summarize what the unit is about and specify useful information about it.
CMakeLists.txt could simply contain:
add_subdirectory(lib)
add_subdirectory(test)
lib/CMakeLists.txt:
project(UnitD)
set(headers
UnitD/ClassA.h
UnitD/ClassB.h
)
set(sources
UnitD/ClassA.cpp
UnitD/ClassB.cpp
)
add_library(${TARGET_NAME} STATIC ${headers} ${sources})
# INSTALL_INTERFACE: folder to which you will install a directory UnitD containing the headers
target_include_directories(UnitD
PUBLIC $<BUILD_INTERFACE:${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}>
PUBLIC $<INSTALL_INTERFACE:include/SomeDir>
)
target_link_libraries(UnitD
PUBLIC UnitA
PRIVATE UnitC
)
Here, note that it is not necessary to tell CMake that we want the include directories for UnitA and UnitC, as this was already specified when configuring those units. Also, PUBLIC will tell all targets that depend on UnitD that they should automatically include the UnitA dependency, while UnitC won't be required then (PRIVATE).
test/CMakeLists.txt (see further below if you want to use GTest for it):
project(UnitDTests)
add_executable(UnitDTests
ClassATest.cpp
ClassBTest.cpp
[main.cpp]
)
target_link_libraries(UnitDTests
PUBLIC UnitD
)
add_test(
NAME UnitDTests
COMMAND UnitDTests
)
Using GoogleTest
For Google Test, the easiest is if its source is present in somewhere your source directory, but you don't have to actually add it there yourself.
I've been using this project to download it automatically, and I wrap its usage in a function to make sure that it is downloaded only once, even though we have several test targets.
This CMake function is the following:
function(import_gtest)
include (DownloadProject)
if (NOT TARGET gmock_main)
include(DownloadProject)
download_project(PROJ googletest
GIT_REPOSITORY https://github.com/google/googletest.git
GIT_TAG release-1.8.0
UPDATE_DISCONNECTED 1
)
set(gtest_force_shared_crt ON CACHE BOOL "" FORCE) # Prevent GoogleTest from overriding our compiler/linker options when building with Visual Studio
add_subdirectory(${googletest_SOURCE_DIR} ${googletest_BINARY_DIR} EXCLUDE_FROM_ALL)
endif()
endfunction()
and then, when I want to use it inside one of my test targets, I will add the following lines to the CMakeLists.txt (this is for the example above, test/CMakeLists.txt):
import_gtest()
target_link_libraries(UnitDTests gtest_main gmock_main)