On Monday, 11 May 2015 at 08:18:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-05-10 10:12, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
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).
I don't think most of us want that. What we (I) want is for
_other_ unit test blocks to run after an assertion failure. I
also believe all unit test blocks should be completely
independent of each other.
Well, for some of the discussions on parallelized unit tests,
that would be required, and it's certainly good practice in
general, but there's nothing currently stopping folks from
writing unittest blocks which rely on what occurred in previous
unit test blocks, and there are rare circumstances where it makes
sense.
Hopefully, we can get to the point that druntime is able to run
tests in parallel and then we can use attributes to mark
parallelizable unittest blocks to control it.
- Jonathan M Davis
