Extending unittests [proposal] [Proof Of Concept]

[Jens Mueller]

Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Am Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:11:49 +0200
> schrieb Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com>:
> 
> > On 2012-09-20 21:11, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> > 
> > > Oh right, I thought that interface was more restrictive. So the only
> > > changes necessary in druntime are to adapt to the new compiler
> > > interface.
> > >
> > > The new dmd code is still necessary, as it allows to access
> > > all unittests of a module individually. The current code only
> > > provides one function for all unittests in a module.
> > 
> > Yes, exactly. There where some additional data, like file and module 
> > name as well in your compiler changes?
> > 
> 
> The modulename can already be obtained from the moduleinfo. My proposal
> adds fileName and line information for every unittest. It's also
> prepared for unittest names: The name information is passed to the
> runtime, but currently it's always an empty string.

Why do you need filename and line information of a unittest. If a
unittest fails you'll get the relevant information. Why do you want the
information when a unittest succeeded? I only care about failed
unittests. A count of the number of executed unittests and total number
is enough, I think.

Jens