How can one reliably run unittests

[Dennis]

On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 01:08:25 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> The current flag's behavior make no sense. They are not useful. 
> They don't so something sensible. They don't serve typical use 
> cases.

The behavior is good for [custom test 
runners](https://forum.dlang.org/post/pmniziegqhwbaqwfrbqz@forum.dlang.org) or [incremental compilation of unittests](https://github.com/dlang/phobos/blob/d8c702dd54e9a5fd2d914df1335b664f0fd9ab20/posix.mak#L362). Dub projects can use [silly](https://code.dlang.org/packages/silly) to filter tests, and maybe the default dub test runner should be able to do the same. That wouldn't require a change to the `-unittest` flag though.

> And here is the root problem: something is complete trash and 
> yet, not only I'm told this is normal and expected, but I'm 
> supposed to be happy with it.

I'm sorry to hear you're frustrated with the current situation, 
but I can't just open a dmd pull request breaking the CLI and 
dismissing everyone else's use cases and get that merged. If you 
want to rant a bit to vent your frustration, that's fine by me, 
but if you want this thread to result in an improvement, you'll 
need to come up with a specific, feasible proposal.

> In fact, people went through the length of migrating the whole 
> standard library to use the StdUnittest version to work around 
> the problem I'm pointing.

No, see [Steven's 
post](https://forum.dlang.org/post/sglmk0$33m$1@digitalmars.com).