Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Monday, January 24, 2011 09:55:52 Jens Mueller wrote: > > Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > > In case you didn't know, I have a set of unit test helper functions which > > > have been being reviewed for possible inclusion in phobos. Here's an > > > update. > > > > > > Most recent code: http://is.gd/F1OHat > > > > > > Okay. I took the previous suggestions into consideration and adjusted the > > > code a bit more. However, most of the changes are to the documentation > > > (though there are some changes to the code). Some of the code > > > duplication was removed, and the way that some of the assertPred > > > functions' errors are formatted has been altered so that values line up > > > vertically, making them easier to compare. The big change is the docs > > > though. There's now a fake version of assertPred at the top with an > > > overall description for assertPred followed by the individual versions > > > with as little documentation as seemed appropriate while still getting > > > all of the necessary information across. A couple of the functions still > > > have irritatingly long example sections, but anything less wouldn't get > > > the functionality across. > > > > > > In any case. Here's the updated code. Review away. Andrei set the vote > > > deadline for February 7th, at which point, if it passes majority vote, > > > then it will go into Phobos. The number of functions is small enough now > > > (thanks to having consolidated most of them into the fantastically > > > versatile assertPred) that it looks like it will likely go in > > > std.exception if the vote passes rather than becoming a new module. So, > > > the std.unittests title has now become a bit of a misnomer, but that's > > > what I've been calling it, so it seemed appropriate to continue to label > > > it that way in the thread's title. > > > > I wonder whether there is a nice way to have unittests included in the > > documentation but also executed. There are lots of examples in the > > module (search for 'Verify Examples'). > > I like to avoid this duplication. Has anybody an idea how to achieve > > this? Often the unittests themselves are a pretty good code > > documentation. > > I think that it's been discussed a time or two, but nothing has been done > about > it. It wouldn't be entirely straightforward to do. Essentially, either a > unittest block would have to be generated from the Examples section in the > documentation, or you'd have to have some way to indicate that a particular > unittest block got put into the documentation as an Examples section. It's > certainly true that it would be ideal to have a way to avoid the duplication, > but we don't have one at the moment, and it hasn't yet been a high enough > priority to sort out how to do it and implement it.
I see. I understand that it does not have high priority. Just wondered whether ... Jens