unittests are really part of the build, not a special run

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 4/6/15 3:16 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> On Monday, 30 March 2015 at 23:26:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>> And if you suggest to build both test and normal build as part of
>>>> single
>>>> compiler call (building test version silently in the background)
>>>> this is
>>>> also very confusing addition hardly worth its gain.
>>>
>>> Making the format of unittest failures better would take us a long
>>> way. Then we can script builds so the unittest and release build are
>>> created concurrently.
>>
>> If it is only format that matters you an always change it via custom
>> test runner. For example, we do have a test runner that generates
>> JUnit-compatible XML output for Jenkins - and that was possible to do
>> with plain `unittest` blocks even with D1 :)
>>
>> Main problem with changing default formatting is that it is pretty
>> hard to choose one that is 100% right. Current one is at least simple
>> and predictable being just an exception printout.
>
> I think having the default using the same format as compiler errors
> makes perfect sense. Providing extra formatters in Phobos, would be a
> huge gain, like a JUnit-compatible formatter, as it's a very widespread
> test reporting format that can be used with many tools.
>
> I agree the key is the current configurability, but providing better
> default and better out of the box alternatives seems like a very
> reasonable approach to me.

YES! I was surprised that any of this was being debated. -- Andrei