Hack to name unit tests?

[Jari-Matti Mäkelä]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Robert Fraser wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>> I'd then like to be able to specifically execute only specific unit test(s) 
>> so that for instance I can debug the relationship between my x and y 
>> modules without triggering off a test of the whole freakin' alphabet.
>> 
>
> Besides the naming, all that is possible right now, which is what my tool is 
> doing.
>
>> I would then like an improvement of unittests so that one can do more than 
>> merely assert().  Complete self-examination code should be possible - which 
>> means being able to examine program flow and trace variables.  This would 
>> ultimately lead to *being able to* generate proofs on the correctness of 
>> the code.
>> 
>> Someone could then just write a library.
>
> Hmmm... that sounds a bit complex for an average tester. Might be a good idea 
> in a pure-functional language, but I can't see it being much use in D.

Yep, it's a bit difficult to prove the correctness with unittests because 
of side effects. Also 100% test coverage won't mean it works perfectly.

Hmm, what about unittest as an attribute / annotation for functions. This 
works pretty well in Java and is more flexible than the one in D.