version(assert) and Phobos release unittest build

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 28/11/13 19:01, Dicebot wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 17:28:56 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
>> On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 17:22:20 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>> I don't know what is the proper way to handle this but current situation is
>>> clearly worth a bugzilla entry. It is just weird.
>>
>> Maybe this is intended behaviour to handle testing AssertErrors in unit tests?
>> How else could you test them.
>
> It is tricky.

The basic problem is this: if you compile something with -release -unittest, it 
will strip out all assert statements and contracts _in the main code_, while 
preserving assert statements etc. inside the unittest blocks.

Now, if you compile with -release -unittest, quite obviously you want the 
unittests to test the code _as compiled for release_, so the above is entirely 
correct behaviour.  It becomes problematic when you want to start testing 
behaviour that should take place in non-release mode but not in release mode (or 
vice versa).

The _reason_ it's problematic is because inside the unittest blocks, the 
version(release) and version(assert) conditionals don't work as they do outside. 
  So you can't use them inside the unittest { ... } blocks as conditionals for 
what tests get run.

Now, I can see the case here for version(assert) -- after all, asserts are 
enabled inside the unittest blocks -- but not so much for version(release). 
After all, if release mode is enabled, it's enabled.  (Presumably the actual 
fact is that release-mode-style compilation is also disabled inside the unittest 
blocks.)

> a) by not using asserts
> b) by compiling unittest blocks in separate pass from main app
>
> (a) breaks many existing tests in release, (b) does not fit well into existing
> compilation model but can be worth considering
>
> There is also (c) of course : document the fact that -unittest overrides
> -release with big red words everywhere :)

I thought that it might also work to group together unittests that are 
conditional on version(release) or version(assert) or whatever, and put the 
unittest block _inside_ the version() { ... } scope.  But it turns out not.

I think it may actually be a bug in whether -release implies version(release). 
Try out the attached code.  (r)dmd -release release.d produces an executable 
that still reports that release mode is disabled.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: release.d
Type: text/x-dsrc
Size: 393 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d-learn/attachments/20131128/346e6106/attachment.d>