Hack to name unit tests?

[Christopher Wright]

Robert Fraser wrote:
> Christopher Wright wrote:
>> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>> Christopher Wright wrote:
>>>> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>>>> I'm creating a Flectioned-based way to run unit tests individually 
>>>>> (it'll be hooked into a front-end, so you can run test suites, 
>>>>> repeat only failed tests after a code change, etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I have run into a problem: unit tests can't be named. 
>>>>> Right now I have a signature system, but I was wondering if there's 
>>>>> any hackish way to predictably insert a string into the generated 
>>>>> object file in a way that users can name unittests. That is to say, 
>>>>> given a function pointer, is there any way I can scan the code to 
>>>>> see if a name has been given to the unit test, and if so extract 
>>>>> that name at runtime?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ideally, it'd be as easy for the user as something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> unittest
>>>>> {
>>>>>    assert(":testName:");
>>>>>    // Rest of test goes here...
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now, I have the associations being done in the front-end I'm 
>>>>> working on, that scans the code for comments in a particular format 
>>>>> and associates those with the unit tests. However, that ties the 
>>>>> unit test executor back-end to the code analysis front-end, so I 
>>>>> was hoping there's a better way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> class Unittest (string _name, alias _dg) : IUnittest {
>>>>    static string name = _name;
>>>>    static void delegate() test = _dg;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Usage:
>>>> Unittest!("my test for wossname", {
>>>>    assert (false, "haven't gotten around to implementing this yet");
>>>> });
>>>>
>>>> Not guaranteed to work.
>>>>
>>>> Another tactic would be something like:
>>>>
>>>> class UnittestManager {
>>>>    static void registerCurrentTest (string name) {}
>>>>    static void endTest (bool success) {}
>>>>    static bool performTest () {}
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> template Unittest (string _name, alias _dg) {
>>>>    unittest {
>>>>       UnittestManager.registerCurrentTest(_name);
>>>>
>>>>       // This lets us skip the test if we're just trying
>>>>       // to find out what tests there are currently.
>>>>       if (UnittestManager.performTest) {
>>>>          scope(success) UnittestManager.endTest(true);
>>>>          scope(failure) UnittestManager.endTest(false);
>>>>          _dg();
>>>>       }
>>>>    }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> mixin Unittest!("my test name", { assert (false, "not yet 
>>>> implemented"); });
>>>
>>> Thanks! That's a good idea, but I want something compatible with 
>>> current unittest {} declarations.
>>
>> You already have to modify the tests to insert the name, but you want 
>> something that works as a decorator inside the unittest. Can your 
>> unittest runner do a try/catch on a unittest? Then you could have 
>> something like:
>>
>> void testName(string name) {
>>    if (collectingNames)
>>       throw new UnittestNameException(name);
>> }
>>
>> struct NamedTest {
>>    Unittest test;
>>    string name;
>> }
>>
>> ...
>> void main () {
>>    NamedTest[] tests;
>>    collectingNames = true;
>>    foreach (test; getUnittests) {
>>        try {
>>            test();
>>        } catch (UnittestNameException e) {
>>            tests ~= NamedTest(test, e.name);
>>        }
>>    }
>>    collectingNames = false;
>> }
>>
>> unittest {
>>    testName("blargh");
>>    assert (false, "still working on this");
>> }
> Heh; alright; that's what I was looking for! Thanks!

No worries. It's pretty much identical in principle to mocked methods in 
dmocks, except for using exceptions to pass the name around and abort 
the method.