unittests are really part of the build, not a special run
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Tue Mar 31 11:24:11 PDT 2015
On 3/31/15 9:21 AM, qznc wrote:
> On Monday, 30 March 2015 at 22:50:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Violent agreement here. I was just saying unittests should be part of
>> the build process, not the run process. Running unittests and then the
>> app is a bad idea.
> Sounds like a good idea to me.
> Then -unittest should be enabled by default?
Probably not; we're looking at two different builds. The build to be
deployed has no unittest code at all.
> Implementationwise it sounds like you want another entry point apart
> from main, e.g. "main_unittest". Then the build process is
> compile-link-unittest. Afterwards the run process is the usual main call.
> It makes binaries bigger though. Maybe unittest-specific code can be
> placed in a special segment, which can be removed during deployment?
Interesting. Or could be a dynamically-loaded library. But... crawl
before we walk.
More information about the Digitalmars-d