Parallel execution of unittests

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 02:48:38PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:09:14 +0100
> Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
[...]
> > In which case D is wrong to allow them in the unittest blocks and
> > should introduce a new way of handling these tests. And even then
> > all tests can and should be parallelized. If they cannot be then
> > there is an inappropriate dependency.
> 
> Why? Because Andrei suddenly proposed that we parallelize unittest
> blocks? If I want to test a function, I'm going to put a unittest
> block after it to test it. If that means accessing I/O, then it means
> accessing I/O. If that means messing with mutable, global variables,
> then that means messing with mutable, global variables. Why should I
> have to put the tests elsewhere or make is that they don't run whenthe
> -unttest flag is used just because they don't fall under your
> definition of "unit" test?
[...]

What about allowing pure marking on unittests, and those unittests that
are marked pure will be parallelized, and those that aren't marked will
be run serially?


T

-- 
Amateurs built the Ark; professionals built the Titanic.