On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:26:32 +0000, Gide Nwawudu <g...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>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.
>
Added http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2749
Gide
