When I first came to D, I read "unittest support" and thought that would be nice. But after I tried it, I realized it sucks and wrote something similar to Jacobs unittest framework.
> I'm against it. I think that the compiler/runtime should be fixed so that > each unit test block is run in a module even if one fails. That would > solve the problem quite nicely IMHO, Which problem? That you can't get a good summary or backtrace? No descriptions of the unit test that failed? That other unit tests in the module will not run after an error? That you can't run some specific unit-tests only? > And > I'm against unittest blocks running any code after a single failure. On the other hand, I think this is absolutely necessary, especially if you have big modules. Imagine a high level unit-tests fails and you can't see the failure in the low level helper functions that nails down the error. However every library implemented unit test framework could just stop after the first failure, if configured properly. Should not be the default though. > So, I > don't think that any additional unit testing framework is necessary. I really think it is and will use one for my D code. Since both worlds could live together peacefully there is absolutely no reason not to include one in phobos.