On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 18:04:31 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On Monday, 30 March 2015 at 22:20:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
This is a tooling issue.
I think D's built-in "unittest" blocks are a mistake.
Yes, they are simple and for simple functions and algorithms
they
work pretty well.
However, when you have a big complex project you start having
other needs:
1. Named unit-tests, so you can better find what failed
2. Better error messages for assertions
3. Better output to rerun failed tests
4. Setup and teardown hooks
5. Different outputs depending on use case
All of this can be done with a library solution. D should have a
very good library solution in phobos and it should be encouraged
to use that. DMD could even know about this library and have
special commands to trigger the tests.
It has been done, several times, by different people. I'm partial
to unit-threaded but then again I would be since I wrote it :)
Atila
The problem is that you can start with "unittest" blocks, but
then you realize you need more, so what do you do? You combine
both? You can't!
I'd say, deprecate "unittest" and write a good test library. You
can still provide it for backwards compatibility.
By the way, this is the way we do it in Crystal. The source code
for the spec library is here, if you need some inspiration:
https://github.com/manastech/crystal/tree/master/src/spec . It's
just 687 lines long.
