External lib unittests: they're killin me!

[Timothee Cour]

it's only module level granularity.

I agree that a library solution is the way to go, however there needs to be
a way to have finer granularity, ie being able to call individual unittests.
I gave the reasons in the 2nd post in this thread. Syntax would be:
unittest(test_fun){...}
having a short syntax such as this will make people use it.

digressing, I wish there would be a simple non-anonymous way to vote for
such features, to see whether most people agree/disagree. It's easier than
voting by email, which invariably gets lost in digressions (as I'm doing
here).


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Nick Sabalausky <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:23:01 -0400
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:52:51 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
> > <SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So alright...Who's with me?!!! "Yeaaaa......!!!!!" (<-- Belushi
> > > running out the door)
> > >
> >
> > I think we can handle this without compiler help.
> >
> > The runtime is responsible for running unit tests.
> >
> > It actually provides a hook to allow you to override the unit tests.
> > See here:
> > http://dlang.org/phobos/core_runtime.html#.Runtime.moduleUnitTester
> > (set in a shared static ctor).  All you have to do is just run the
> > module's unit tests you desire.
> >
>
> Neat, I had no idea.
>
> > I would argue the "stock" unit test runner could be configured by an
> > environment variable to be able to run/exclude whatever you want.
> > This is eminently fixable in the library with a small pull request.
> >
>
> I think that definitely sounds like the way to go.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20130522/f9328706/attachment.html>