D Unittest shortcomings with DLLs

Benjamin Thaut via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Wed Mar 4 23:38:51 PST 2015

On Thursday, 5 March 2015 at 07:28:12 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-03-03 18:49, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> Sounds like you want to test an application that uses Phobos as 
> a DLL. To me that sounds like a more higher level test than a 
> unit test, i.e. integration tests. I would put those tests in 
> completely separate files, in a separate testing directory. 
> Then it should be no problem to compile the parts separately.
> As for private functions. That is more a question of if you 
> really should write specific test for those or just test the 
> public API. If you really want to, you can bypass the 
> protection using pointers.
> BTW, I think we need to have integration tests in general. 
> Testing how different parts/modules interact with each other.

I don't want to write new tests. I want to use the tests for 
phobos which are already there. And I want to use them in a way, 
that if new tests are added to phobos they are also tested 
against the dll version of phobos. Yes integration tests would be 
nice, but the PR for Dll support is already going to be huge 
without me adding integration tests.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list