Parallel execution of unittests

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 16:09:28 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> 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

You don't need artificial pseudo syntax for that.
assert!("==") + named tests is good enough to get the context and 
for detailed investigation you need file and line number anyway. 
Stuff like RSpec is extreme opposite of KISS.