On 23-mar-10, at 20:29, bearophile wrote:
Pelle M.:
I'm not sure I understand, could you explain?<
That was my best explanation, sorry.
I am not experienced with unittest frameworks, and would like to
understand what the D system lacks.<
I think two times in the past I have written a
On 03/23/2010 08:29 PM, bearophile wrote:
Pelle M.:
I'm not sure I understand, could you explain?<
That was my best explanation, sorry.
I am not experienced with unittest frameworks, and would like to understand what
the D system lacks.<
I think two times in the past I have written a li
bearophile Wrote:
> IV) Keep the built-in unit testing of D, keep them almost as simple as they
> are now, but somehow add hooks and flexibility to allow to external D code to
> refine *them* as much as needed (this "external" code can be a Phobos module,
> or it can be a third-part library w
On 03/23/2010 08:10 PM, Trip Volpe wrote:
Trip Volpe Wrote:
...and if an assert fails in one test in a module, _all_ subsequent tests in
that module will be aborted, even though this makes no sense.
Actually I said this wrong. It's worse than that: after one assert failure,
_all_ further exe
Pelle M.:
>I'm not sure I understand, could you explain?<
That was my best explanation, sorry.
>I am not experienced with unittest frameworks, and would like to understand
>what the D system lacks.<
I think two times in the past I have written a list of those lacking things. To
give a good a
Trip Volpe Wrote:
> ...and if an assert fails in one test in a module, _all_ subsequent tests in
> that module will be aborted, even though this makes no sense.
Actually I said this wrong. It's worse than that: after one assert failure,
_all_ further execution is aborted, meaning that even unit
bearophile Wrote:
> Among those four solutions the one I like more is the 'IV'. Because it keeps
> the work of developing the library out of the busy hands of Walter, but
> produces something that can have nice enough syntax, with a not too much
> complex compiler, and it probably allows for som
Pelle Månsson Wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand, could you explain?
>
> I am not experienced with unittest frameworks, and would like to
> understand what the D system lacks.
>
> Thank you.
Me too.
I'm not sure I understand, could you explain?
I am not experienced with unittest frameworks, and would like to
understand what the D system lacks.
Thank you.
I have already written one or two times about this topic, but I think
summarizing the situation again a little can't hurt. Feel free to ignore this
post.
1) D follows Walter's theory that programmers are often lazy or in a rush, they
are often not trained to use unit tests (especially if they c
Sorry, this should have replied to the message asking for more info!
Paul
Paul D. Anderson Wrote:
> Wikipedia is usually a good place to start:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_test
>
> A couple of the references at the end of the Wikipedia article are pretty
> good, also. The Unit Test
Wikipedia is usually a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_test
A couple of the references at the end of the Wikipedia article are pretty
good, also. The Unit Testing Guidelines gives a pretty good breakdown of what
to expect (or not) from unit testing.
Paul
Pelle Månsson
12 matches
Mail list logo
