'live' testing style

[Tomek Sowiński]

spir napisał:

> * Why isn't testList a unittest block?
> 
> Using named funcs, I can switch on & off specific test suites by (un)commenting 
> their call from the main and unique unittest block. Else, either they all run, 
> or none. During development, I only keep active the test func(s) relative to 
> the feature I'm currently working on.
> Remedy: named unittests.

The interesting thing about named unit tests is that their names aren't interesting at all. They are usually dull and forced; testing filterFoo will be called testFilterFoo, etc. Their only purpose is to suppress running of unrelated tests.

Now, there is a seemingly unrelated proposal to include every ddoc'ed unit test in the preceding declaration as an example. This is great because it implies ownership -- a unit test is 'owned' by the symbol above. Going further, it can also be named after its owner.

module ooh;

void foo();

unittest { test foo... }

Compiling with --unittest=ooh.foo runs this unittest only. Nested control as a bonus: compiling with --unittest=ooh runs only the tests in module ooh.

So there you go, named unit tests without naming.

-- 
Tomek