dunit r247

[bearophile]

Christopher Wright:

Having other testing frameworks/tools for D is good. There are many kinds of testing, and the built-in one isn't supposed to implement them all.

Regarding the issues of unit testing with unittest{}, I think the built-in unittesting has to be improved, to removed some of such issues. I am not looking for an universal and perfect built-in unittesting, and I think the built-in unittesting has to be kept simple, but the following things have to be fixed, maybe Walter will eventually understand why they are important:
- Unittests are not labeled.
- There is no output that specifically indicates that the tests were run.
- A failing test will prevent any other tests from running. 
- There is no indication of which test failed, if any.
Such things are bare-bone functionality for any unit testing system.
And I'd like to add a way to unittest at compile time too, to test types, templates, etc. (Until few weeks ago I didn't know any way at all to do this, then someone has given me a hint).


What's the advantage of:
expect(foo(5), equals(3) | greaterThan(5));
Compared to:
expect(foo(5) == 3 | foo(5) > 5);
Or:
auto aux5 = foo(5);
expect(aux5 == 3 | aux5 > 5);
?

>If you write Dunit tests in separate modules, while your production code doesn't include dunit, you cannot test private methods. Dunit encourages the practice of separating tests and modules.<

For me it's often better to keep tests very close to the things they test. It helps me spot and fix bugs faster, to avoid jumping across files, and when I quickly move a block of code (function, class, template, etc) when I reorganize the code it is less likely for me to lose its tests along the way. I think tests are a part of a function/class/template, just like its ddocs.

Bye,
bearophile