Named unittests

[Xavier Bigand via Digitalmars-d]

Le 31/03/2015 20:21, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
> On 3/31/15 7:45 AM, Idan Arye wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 13:34:24 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 10:25:57 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
>>>> I understand the preference to librarize as much as possible, but I
>>>> don't think the desire to sacrifice every possible bit of convenience
>>>> to avoid the tiniest changes to the language is always beneficial. I
>>>> don't say that implementing everything inside the compiler is good
>>>> either though, but in many cases some slight changes to the language
>>>> can make the library solution so much more simple and elegant.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, allowing to name a unittest should be a very simple
>>>> language change that'll make any library implementation of the rest
>>>> of the feature more elegant to use, simpler to implement, and more
>>>> consistent with alternative library implementations.
>>>
>>> It isn't simple at all. Name is just one of many meta-values you
>>> commonly want to attach to unittest block. Some others: description,
>>> dependency, parallelization, benchmark tag, I/O indicator. It is
>>> simply impossible to foresee it all in a language feature - but it is
>>> exactly kind of data UDA are designed for. All we need is to
>>> enhance/fix the language to actually make using of that information
>>> convenient.
>>
>> But unittests already have names(http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/b15e94000f15), so
>> the only required change is to allow the user to specify that name. This
>> should be much simpler than adding entirely new fields.
>
> Interesting point! -- Andrei
It will be nice to have named unittest.

And better if IDEs will be able to retrieve those names, to allow replay 
by name, displaying results by names,...