unittest "name" {}

[bachmeier]

On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 23:21:11 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 17:26:20 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> My opinion is that naming a unit test is the wrong approach. 
>> If the condition for an `enforce` statement fails, it returns 
>> an informative message, not a name attached to the `enforce` 
>> statement. Along those lines, I would prefer this:
>>
>> ```
>> unittest {
>>   onFailure("Comparison of transformations failed");
>>   ...
>> }
>> ```
>
> ```
> unittest
> {
>     import std.stdio;
>
>     scope(failure) writeln("Test failed");
>     assert(1 + 1 == 3);
> }
> ```

That works, but it's verbose, and if you run this program

```
import std.stdio;

unittest {
   assert(3 == 2);
   scope(failure) { writeln("running failure code"); }
}

void main() {}
```

The output is

```
[unittest] Assertion failure
1/1 modules FAILED unittests
```

so it's not exactly the same as an `onFailure` that could go at 
the top or bottom. You can also use version statements if you 
want to selectively run unit tests, so the whole discussion is 
really about convenience.