Extending unittests [proposal] [Proof Of Concept]

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-09-21 17:32, Johannes Pfau wrote:

> Well, I think we should just leave the basic unittest runner in
> druntime unchanged. There are unittests in phobos which depend on that
> behavior.

Yeah, this was more a philosophical discussion.

> Other projects can use a custom test runner like Jens Mueller's dtest.
>
> Ignoring assert in a test is not supported by this proposal. It would
> need much more work and it's probably not a good idea anyway.

There's core.runtime.setAssertHandler, I hope your changes are 
compatible with that.

> But when porting gdc it's quite annoying if a unit test fails because
> of a compiler (codegen) error and you can't see the result of the
> remaining unit tests. If unit tests are not independent, this could
> cause some false positives, or crash in the worst case. But as long as
> this is not the default in druntime I see no reason why we should
> explicitly prevent it.
> Again, the default unit test runner in druntime hasn't changed _at all_.
> This just provides additional possibilities for test runners.

With core.runtime.exception.setAssertHandler and 
core.runtime.Runtime.moduleUnitTester I think that's only thing I need 
to run the unit tests the way I want it.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg