Named unittests

Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at
Tue Mar 31 15:02:26 PDT 2015

On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 21:22:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 14:45:50 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
>> But unittests already have 
>> names(, so the only 
>> required change is to allow the user to specify that name. 
>> This should be much simpler than adding entirely new fields.
> And does not really help. Of all metadata that one may want to 
> attach to a test block, names are actually _least_ important in 
> practice. It will be matter of time until Andrei creates new 
> topic about adding descriptions to tests or way to mark flakey 
> ones. Better to invest into something that scales at least a 
> bit.

I think you and I work under different assumptions of the goals 
for this feature. If we only want unittest names to be something 
that can be printed when the unittest runner runs the unittests, 
than a UDA with a string is indeed preferable. If we want 
something that tools can actually use to refer to a specific 
unittest, we need a proper identifier(yes, even though it can be 
implemented in library code because D is Turing-complete...)

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list