On Monday, 30 March 2015 at 22:50:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 3/30/15 3:30 PM, Dicebot wrote:
tl: dr: please, no
We have put quite some effort into fighting default DMD
behaviour of
-unittest simply adding to main function and not replacing it.
Initially
many applications did run tests on startup because DMD
suggested it is a
good idea - some rather bad practical experience has shown
this was a
rather bad suggestion. Accidental tests that start doing I/O on
productions servers, considerably increased restart times for
services -
that kind of issues.
Violent agreement here. I was just saying unittests should be
part of the build process, not the run process. Running
unittests and then the app is a bad idea.
Ok, pardon me for misunderstanding :) I got confused by "you
don't want to run application that isn't tested" part.
And if you suggest to build both test and normal build as part
of single
compiler call (building test version silently in the
background) this is
also very confusing addition hardly worth its gain.
Making the format of unittest failures better would take us a
long way. Then we can script builds so the unittest and release
build are created concurrently.
If it is only format that matters you an always change it via
custom test runner. For example, we do have a test runner that
generates JUnit-compatible XML output for Jenkins - and that was
possible to do with plain `unittest` blocks even with D1 :)
Main problem with changing default formatting is that it is
pretty hard to choose one that is 100% right. Current one is at
least simple and predictable being just an exception printout.
