DUnit: Advanced unit testing toolkit.
doob at me.com
Thu Sep 26 07:51:16 PDT 2013
On 2013-09-26 13:12, Dicebot wrote:
> I was saying that if you want to have some tests independent, it makes
> much more sense to do it this way:
> @test("foo") unittest
> assert(1 == 1);
> @test("bar") unittest
> assert(1 == 2);
> ..and let tests within one block terminate on first failure. That should
> integrate better with existing tooling when no external testing
> library/framework is connected.
Exactly. I guess I misunderstood you. Although I would consider "having
lot of small independent annotated unit-test blocks" be basically what
you're showing above.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce