Le 30/04/2014 17:43, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
Hello,
A coworker mentioned the idea that unittests could be run in parallel
(using e.g. a thread pool). I've rigged things to run in parallel
unittests across modules, and that works well. However, this is too
coarse-grained - it would be great if each unittest could be pooled
across the thread pool. That's more difficult to implement.
I think it's a great idea, mainly for TDD. I had experiment it with
Java, and when execution time grow TDD loose rapidly his efficiently.
Some Eclipse's plug-ins are able to run them in parallel if I remember
correctly.
This brings up the issue of naming unittests. It's becoming increasingly
obvious that anonymous unittests don't quite scale - coworkers are
increasingly talking about "the unittest at line 2035 is failing" and
such. With unittests executing in multiple threads and issuing e.g.
logging output, this is only likely to become more exacerbated. We've
resisted named unittests but I think there's enough evidence to make the
change.
IMO naming is important for reporting tools (tests status,
benchmarks,...). Unittests evolves with the rest of the code.
Last but not least, virtually nobody I know runs unittests and then
main. This is quickly becoming an idiom:
version(unittest) void main() {}
else void main()
{
...
}
I think it's time to change that. We could do it the
non-backward-compatible way by redefining -unittest to instruct the
compiler to not run main. Or we could define another flag such as
-unittest-only and then deprecate the existing one.
Thoughts? Would anyone want to work on such stuff?
Andrei
