CURL Wrapper: Congratulations Next up: std.serialize

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday, December 31, 2011 16:06:49 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-12-31 11:37, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 31, 2011 11:05:58 Tobias Pankrath wrote:
> >>> I think that the AssertError's message (which includes the file and
> >>> line number of the failure) and its stack trace are plenty. It's
> >>> exactly what you need and nothing else.
> >>> 
> >>> - Jonathan M Davis
> >> 
> >> I want to have such a summary.
> > 
> > I don't see any reason to put that in the standard library. There's
> > nothing wrong with 3rd party solutions which give additional
> > functionality, but D's unit test framework is designed to be
> > minimilistic, and I don't think that adding anything beyond what it
> > does now in terms of summary makes any sense. The only major issue in
> > that regard IMHO is the fact that no further unittest blocks within a
> > module are run after one fails. Even if it did, I still don't think
> > that a fancier summary would be worth having - especially in the
> > standard library.
> 
> BTW, what would be so wrong if the unit tests for the standard library
> displayed a nice report when finished?

My primary issue here is that I don't think that we should be adding stuff to 
Phobos which is essentially a new unit test framework on top of the built in 
one. If 3rd party stuff wants to do that. Fine. But the standard library should 
use the standard facilities. If the standard facilities aren't sufficient, then 
they should be improved.

As for a "nice report," I don't see anything wrong with just using the stack 
traces (which include the file, line number, and error message of the assertion 
failure). That's all the information that's needed. Anything else is 
superfluous IMHO. Now, if there were something nicer that could be generally 
agreed upon and added to druntime such that the standard unit test facilities 
used it, then fine. I don't see any point to it, but at least in that case, the 
standard library is still using the standard unit test framework. What I 
really don't want to see is Phobos essentially building a new unit test 
framework on top of the existing one. Any issues that need to be addressed 
with the unit test framework for the standard library should be addressed in 
the standard framework. Any additional framework stuff should be left to 3rd 
parties.

- Jonathan M Davis