Should unittests run as logical part of compilation?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/25/14 4:26 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Saturday, 25 January 2014 at 22:55:33 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> There's this simple realization that unittests could (should?) be
>> considered an intrinsic part of the build process. In order for an
>> executable to be worth running, it should pass the regular semantic
>> checks and also the unittests, which in a sense are extended semantic
>> checks that fall outside the traditional charter of the compiler.
>> [...]
>> What do you think? Logistically it shouldn't be too hard to arrange
>> things to cater to this approach.
>>
>
> How does this work for those who build on one machine and test on
> another?

Yah, thanks (and Johannes too) for making this point. That means we 
should not prevent the option of running them separately.

> This seems more like a workflow feature rather than a build feature.
> But integration into the toolchain could be pretty cool (like you said,
> clicking on a messages in the output window, and zooming right to the
> point of failure).

That is correct - an build environment thing.


Andrei