ModuleInfo, factories, and unittesting

[Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 22 December 2016 at 17:46:06 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
> I don't know what other people think but the current status of 
> build-in unittests are #1 issue for a quick development. The 
> inability to give test a name (plus selective unittesting) and  
> continue on failure is puzzling to me.



Have you seen my filthy hack for getting individual unittests to 
continue on failure? http://stackoverflow.com/a/40896271/1457000

It'd be a lot easier though to just actually get the compiler or 
library to do it. There's so many ways, I personally like the 
RTInfo for modules approach, it is easy to implement, easy to 
customize per project, and gives us access to the CT features. 
But there's others too.