Hack to name unit tests?

[Don Clugston]

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...
> }

I think this is possible, but tricky. If your unit test has a local variable, 
and you instantiate a template using that local variable as an alias parameter, 
the module and the number of the unit test gets included into the mangled name.
This means that it's possible for code to know which unit test it is inside.
By making the template a class, you could to walk the RTTI list and make a 
lookup table to associate test numbers with their names. If you can get the list 
  of unittest numbers from flectioned, you can join it

BUT... that's all pretty hairy. Maybe there's a less convoluted way of doing it.