Should unittests run as logical part of compilation?

Andrei Alexandrescu SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org
Mon Jan 27 08:08:39 PST 2014


On 1/27/14 3:10 AM, Alix Pexton wrote:
> On 27/01/2014 4:15 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 1/26/14 8:08 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>> On Monday, 27 January 2014 at 03:58:54 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> Yeppers. One other thought I had was to define a special flag e.g.
>>>> --4c5ad7908c2aa1b3de32ea25968cdf49 that says "just run unittests".
>>>
>>> I really think it would be better to use
>>> --4c5ad7908c2aa1b3de42ea25968cdf49 instead, it just makes the intent
>>> clearer.
>>
>> I'm just saying it should not clash with any application argument.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Hows about making it so that unittests are only run if the executable
> name has a "_ut" suffix, or some other special name/convention?
>
> A...

Something like that would work nicely with a build system - the 
executable name has a specific suffix and is promoted to the 
non-unittest suffix once it has passed unittests.

Andrei




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list