On Thursday, September 20, 2012 18:53:38 Johannes Pfau wrote: > Proposal: [snip]
In general, I'm all for instrumenting druntime such that unit testing tools could run unit tests individually and present their output in a customized manner, just so long as it doesn't really change how unit tests work now as far as compiling with -unittest and running your program goes. The only change that might be desirable would be making it so that after a unittest block fails, subsequent unittest blocks within its module are still run. I _would_ point out that running any unittest blocks in a function without running every other unittest block before them is error prone (running further unittet blocks after a failure is risky enough). Last time I used JUnit, even though it claimed to run unitests individually and tell you the result, it didn't really. It might have not run all of the unit tests after the one you asked for, but it still ran all of the ones before it. Not doing so would be p problem in any situation where one unit test affects state that further unit tests use (much as that's arguably bad practice). Regardless, I confess that I don't care too much about the details of how this sort of thing is done so long as it doesn't really change how they work from the standpoint of compiling with -unittest and running your executable. The _one_ feature that I really wish we had was the ability to name unit tests, since then you'd get a decent name in stack traces, but the fact that the pull request which makes it so that unittest block functions are named after their line number has finally been merged in makes that less of an issue. - Jonathan M Davis
