Parallel execution of unittests

[Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 15:07:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 04:55:25PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 07/05/14 16:05, Dicebot wrote:
>> 
>> >Have never liked that fancy description syntax of "smart" 
>> >testing
>> >frameworks.
>> 
>> I hate plain unit test blocks with just a bunch of asserts. 
>> It's
>> impossible to know that's being tested.
> [...]
>
> Huh? Isn't that what unittest blocks are about? To verify that 
> certain
> assumed conditions are actually true at runtime?
>
> Verbal descriptions can be put in comments, if need be, can't 
> they?

They can. But those descriptions are not included in failing test 
output. What I think Jacob might be getting to as well is that 
assertEquals or the more RSpec-like "foo.should equal 3" is more 
readable than the raw asserts.

The context matters. In some frameworks that means using test 
names like testThatWhenIDoThisThenTheOtherThingActuallyHappens 
(which we'd get if we can have named unit tests), RSpec tries to 
be more readable but in the end it's all about:

1) Documenting what the code is supposed to do
2) Knowing what test failed and what it was testing

Atila