On 3/23/18 3:46 PM, Johan Engelen wrote:
On Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 15:18:40 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 11:00:31 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
Direct link:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/03/22/keep-d-unittests-separated-from-production-code/
I completely agree. Although my reason is mostly because there will be
too much code in a single file if the regular code and unit tests are
mixed in the same file.
Fully agree with this "too much code in a single file" point. I am
confident that part of the reason of Phobos unittesting being very
incomplete, is that adding unittests further clutters the codebase.
Moving all unittests to the bottom of the file (pulling them out of
classes too) would resolve this issue in part.
Note that a frequent complaint of std.datetime (at least when it was one
module) is that the file was too big. While it does hold a lot of
functionality, the majority of the file size is unittests. This means
that it can be hard to surf the file for functionality.
But on the flip side, there aren't a lot of datetime bugs!
I personally believe that there should be unit tests for every function,
and be right next to the function. I don't want to go on a search for
such things, or have to rely on manual documentation to know what is
testing what. It would be nice to have your editor hide the unit tests
unless you want to work on them.
I've worked on a project where the testing was separated from the code,
and it was a liability IMO. Things would get missed and not tested properly.
-Steve
