Le 30/04/2012 05:03, H. S. Teoh a écrit :
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:39:02PM +0200, deadalnix wrote:Le 29/04/2012 22:54, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :D unit tests were never really useful for anything beyond single-library projects IMHO. They don't scale for large, real-world application projects with lots of libraries and executables.+1 A good std.unittest + attributes is probably a better approach.The only reason I actually write unittests for D code is because unittest{} is so convenient. If I had to import std.unittest, most likely my code will have no unittests at all.
Is @unittest on top of a function much more difficult ?
I find that because unittest{} makes it so convenient to write
unittests, it's just embarrassing to not write them. Which is kinda the
point, 'cos in my experience the act of writing a unittest automatically
makes you think about corner cases in the code you just wrote (or just
about to write), which means there will be less bugs from the get-go.
Agreed.
Also, unittest is just that: for _unit_ tests. If you start needing an entire framework for them, then you're no longer talking about _unit_ tests, you're talking about module- or package-level testing frameworks, and you should be using something more suitable for that, not unittest.
Consider cases like checking if Liskov substitution principle is fallowed in a class hierarchy running the same unitest on various instantiations in that hierarchy.
This is common need and still fall in the unittest bag.
