Should unittests run as logical part of compilation?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/27/14 3:39 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> On 1/27/14, 1:04 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 1/26/14 5:36 PM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>> On 1/25/14, 7:55 PM, 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.
>>>
>>> I can imagine someone who discovered a bug late at night, has a fix and
>>> needs to upload the new executable as soon as possible: he quickly
>>> comments all failing unit tests to make them pass. The next morning he
>>> uncomments them and fixes them with tranquility.
>>
>> The point being?
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>
> That it's annoying if you can't build an executable because some tests
> fail. Sometimes you know tests fail but you didn't have time to fix them
> (but you did fix the code).

Got it, thanks.

Andrei