Unittests and assert

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 08:29:41 monarch_dodra wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 February 2013 at 04:58:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> 
> wrote:
> > So, while I can understand why you'd think that we have a
> > problem, we actually
> > don't.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> One of the issues we may actually have down the road is if/when
> we want to try to deploy failable tests eg:
> "Test result 197/205".
> 
> If one of the tests fails with an assert though, you aren't
> really capable of moving on to the next test...

D's unit test facilities are designed to be simple. If you want something 
fancier, use a 3rd party framework of some kind.

D's unit test facilities are also designed so that they specifically print 
_nothing_ on success (and as a command-line tool, this is important), so 
printing out how many passed or failed will never work unless there are 
failures (which may or may not conflict with what you're looking for).

Executing further unittest blocks within a file would often be nice, but it 
also often would result in erroneous failures (sometimes you're stuck having 
unittest blocks later in a file rely on those before, even if it's better to 
avoid that), and it's complete foolishness IMHO to try and continue executing 
tests within a single unittest block once one assertion fails. Even if they're 
often independent, it's far to frequent that each subsequent assertion relies 
on the success of the ones before. So, I'd tend to be against what you're 
suggesting anyway.

Also, I suspect that Walter is going to be very reticent to add much of 
anything to the built in unit tests. They're very simple on purpose, and he 
generally shoots down suggestions that involve even things as simple as being 
able to indicate which tests to run.

Really, if you want fancier unit testing facilities, it's likely going to 
always be the case that you're going to use a 3rd party framework of some 
kind. The way the built-in ones are done makes it difficult to extend what they 
do, and they're _supposed_ to be simple, so any features which go against that 
would be shot down anyway.

- Jonathan M Davis