Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 13:33:54 bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
Most of the rest (if not all of it) could indeed be done in a library.
I am not sure it could be done nicely too :-)
That would depend on what you're trying to do. Printing test success or failure
is as simple as adding the approprate scope statement to the beginning of each
unittest block. A bit tedious perhaps, but not hard.
Right now
unit tests follow the unix convention of saying nothing on success,
That's an usability failure. Humans expect feedback, because you can't tell
apart "unittests run and succeed" from "unittests not even run". That Unix
convention is bad here. And Unix commands sometimes have a -v (verbose)
command that gives feedback, while D unittests don't have this option.
I'm afraid that I have to disagree there. Having all of the successes print out
would, in many cases, just be useless output flooding the console. I have no
problem with making it possible for unit tests to report success, but I wouldn't
want that to be the default. It's quite clear when a test fails, and that's what
is necessary in order to fix test failures.
I can see why a beginner might want the positive feedback that a test has
succeeded, but personally, I would just find it annoying. The only real advantage
would be that it would indicate where in the unit tests the program was, and
that's only particularly important if you have a _lot_ of them and they take a
long time to run.
I think: "%d unit tests passed in %d modules"
would be enough.
