On Saturday, 9 May 2015 at 00:24:45 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
The issues with unittests are legit, albeit fixable. It's goofy
to run the program after unittests, and unittests should have
names that can be introspected, selected etc. I couldn't find
much merit with the rest of the list. -- Andrei
Those are really the only ones that I've ever thought made sense,
and in several cases, the things that folks want are things that
I very much _don't_ want (e.g. continuing to execute a unittest
block after an assertion failure). However, while it _is_ a bit
goofy that the unit tests run just prior to the program running,
it's easy enough to work around that I've never considered it a
big deal. Maybe the solution would be to simply make it so that
main gets replaced when you compile with -unittest rather than
forcing you to do something like
version(unittest) void main() {}
else void main()
{
...
}
It's the lack of unit test names that poses a potentially big
problem for large projects. But even that shouldn't be hard to
fix - especially when unittest blocks are already functions with
names to begin with; it's just that you can't name them yourself.
But at least their names have their line number in them now. That
didn't used to be the case, which was even worse - though I'm
willing to bet that most folks don't realize that the unittest
block's line number is in its function name.
- Jonathan M Davis
