Parallel execution of unittests

[QAston via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 15:43:35 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> A coworker mentioned the idea that unittests could be run in 
> parallel (using e.g. a thread pool). I've rigged things to run 
> in parallel unittests across modules, and that works well. 
> However, this is too coarse-grained - it would be great if each 
> unittest could be pooled across the thread pool. That's more 
> difficult to implement.
>
> This brings up the issue of naming unittests. It's becoming 
> increasingly obvious that anonymous unittests don't quite scale 
> - coworkers are increasingly talking about "the unittest at 
> line 2035 is failing" and such. With unittests executing in 
> multiple threads and issuing e.g. logging output, this is only 
> likely to become more exacerbated. We've resisted named 
> unittests but I think there's enough evidence to make the 
> change.
>
> Last but not least, virtually nobody I know runs unittests and 
> then main. This is quickly becoming an idiom:
>
> version(unittest) void main() {}
> else void main()
> {
>    ...
> }
>
> I think it's time to change that. We could do it the 
> non-backward-compatible way by redefining -unittest to instruct 
> the compiler to not run main. Or we could define another flag 
> such as -unittest-only and then deprecate the existing one.
>
> Thoughts? Would anyone want to work on such stuff?
>
>
> Andrei

An existing library implementation:
https://github.com/atilaneves/unit-threaded