Unit tests in D

[Jason House]

Sean Kelly Wrote:

> Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> > bearophile wrote:
> > > dmd D 2.045 improves the built-in unit tests resuming their run when
> > > they fail (it reports only the first failed assert for each unit
> > > test).
> > > > There are many features that today a professional unittest system
> > > > is expected to offer, I can write a long list. But in the past I
> > > > have explained that it's a wrong idea to try to implement all
> > > > those things in dmd.
> > > > So a good solution that has all the advantages is:
> > > - To add dmd the "core" features that are both important and hard to
> > > implement nicely in an external library or IDE (or make D more
> > > flexible so writing such libs is possible, but this can be not
> > > easy).
> > > - To add dmd the compile-time reflection, run-time reflection or
> > > hooks that external unittest libs/IDEs can use to extend the
> > > built-in unit testing functionality.
> > > > It's not easy to find such core features (that can be used by an
> > > > IDE, but are usable from the normal command line too), this is my
> > > > first try, and I can be wrong. Feel free to add items you think
> > > > are necessary, or to remove items you know can be implemented
> > > > nicely in an external library. Later I can write an enhancement
> > > > request.
> > 
> > I think the majority of the items in your list can already be done
> > fairly well (or easily enough by a library), except for giving names
> > to unit tests.
> 
> A while back I proposed:
> 
> unittest("name") {}
> 
> As an optional way to name a unittest. It's the last function-like thing
> without parens anyway.

I think it's been repeatedly proposed. One contributor to my open source project created a function test(string name, void delegate() what)... It would allow the program to continue after a failed unit test, but would print out the names of the failing tests.