On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:34:52 -0400, bearophile
<bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote:
>Christopher Wright:
>
>Having other testing frameworks/tools for D is good. There are many kinds of
>testing, and the built-in one isn't supposed to implement them all.
>
>Regarding the issues of unit testing with unittest{}, I think the built-in
>unittesting has to be improved, to removed some of such issues. I am not
>looking for an universal and perfect built-in unittesting, and I think the
>built-in unittesting has to be kept simple, but the following things have to
>be fixed, maybe Walter will eventually understand why they are important:
>- Unittests are not labeled.
>- There is no output that specifically indicates that the tests were run.
>- A failing test will prevent any other tests from running.
>- There is no indication of which test failed, if any.
>Such things are bare-bone functionality for any unit testing system.
>And I'd like to add a way to unittest at compile time too, to test types,
>templates, etc. (Until few weeks ago I didn't know any way at all to do this,
>then someone has given me a hint).
>
I think that nestable named unittest would be nice. I'll raise it as
an enhancement request.
unittest ("XML") {
unittest("elements") {
assert(isValidXml("<aaa />"));
assert(isValidXml("<aaa/>"));
assert(isValidXml("<aaa></aaa>"));
...
}
unittest("attributes") {
assert(isValidXml("<aaa abc="\x\"/>"));
assert(isValidXml("<aaa abc=\"x\" def=\"y\"/>"));
...
}
unittest("encoding") {
assert(encode("hello") is "hello");
assert(encode("a > b") == "a > b");
...
}
}
Gide
