Named unittests
Shammah Chancellor via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Tue Mar 31 21:42:33 PDT 2015
On 2015-03-30 21:52:36 +0000, Andrei Alexandrescu said:
> We're having a strong need for named unittests at Facebook for multiple
> reasons.
>
> 1. We have sophisticated tooling that verifies whether unittests are
> flaky. The automated monitor (for e.g. C++) figures whether a given
> unittest fails several times across several commits. Unittests are
> identified by name; relying on file/line is impossible because the line
> of a failure is not stable across changes.
>
> 2. Again for efficient automated testing and flakiness detection, one
> should be able to run only a subset of unittests by mentioning them by
> line in the command line. Note that this implies there's no
> interdependency between distinct unittests, which is fine because the
> new ability is opt-on; I'd say is pure style anyway.
>
> 3. Mentioning unittest names in failure messages helps human
> communication (e.g. "AddPeer is failing after your change"). This is
> impossible with file and line numbers.
>
> I'd like to make a DIP for named unittests. Who can help me with that?
>
>
> Andrei
This is a fantastic idea -- and something I was concerned about lately. +1
I can possibly help with a DIP, but it seems like a very
straightforward request?
-Shammah
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list