On 1/24/11 2:37 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:20:13 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 1/24/11 2:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/24/11 1:50 PM, Jens Mueller wrote:
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
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
The change is much simpler than what Jonathan suggests. A change can be
made such that any unittest preceded by a documentation comment is
automatically considered an example.
/**
Example:
*/
unittest
{
writeln("This is how it works.");
}
Andrei
BTW I consider this a very important topic. We have _plenty_ of
examples that don't work and are not mechanically verifiable. The
reasons range from minor typos to language changes to implementation
limitations. Generally this is what they call "documentation rot".
This is terrible PR for the language.
Changing ddoc to recognize documentation unittests would fix this
matter once and forever.
Last but not least, the "----" separators for code samples are awful
because no editor recognizes them for anything - they confuse the hell
out of Emacs for one thing.
This only makes sense if:
1. The unit test immediately follows the item being documented
2. The unit test *only* tests that item.
That's the what current examples do for virtually all of Phobos.
The second one could be pretty annoying. Consider cases where several
functions interact (I've seen this many times on Microsoft's
Documentation), and it makes sense to make one example that covers all
of them. Having them 'testable' means creating several identical unit
tests.
One way to easily fix this is to allow an additional parameter to the
comment:
/**
Example(Foo.foo(int), Foo.bar(int)):
*/
unittest
{
auto foo = new Foo;
foo.foo(5);
foo.bar(6);
assert(foo.toString() == "bazunga!");
}
The above means, copy the example to both Foo.foo(int) and Foo.bar(int)
Why would I force the reader to read the same example twice? And why
would I run the same unittest twice?
An alternative that is more verbose, but probably more understandable:
/**
Example:
Covers Foo.foo(int)
Covers Foo.bar(int)
*/
Of course, a lack of target just means it applies to the item just
documented.
I find documented unittests attractive mainly because they're _simple_.
As soon as we start to add that kind of stuff... exponential decay.
One other thing, using writefln is considered bad form in unit tests
(you want *no* output if the unit test works). But many examples might
want to demonstrate how e.g. an object interacts with writefln. Any
suggestions? The assert line above is not very pretty for example...
Yah, that is an issue. For examples that do non-unittesty stuff (e.g.
writeln, use sockets etc.) we can still use the old-style documentation.
By the way, for all examples that don't explicitly describe writeln, we
shouldn't use writeln anyway. Instead, we should use assert to clearly
describe what happens:
// BAD: example of concatenation
string s1 = "Hello, ";
string s2 = "world!";
writeln(s1 ~ s2); // writes Hello, world!
// GOOD: example of concatenation
string s1 = "Hello, ";
string s2 = "world!";
assert(s1 ~ s2 == "Hello, world!"); // no need for comment
Andrei
