unittest "name" {}

[FeepingCreature]

On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 21:08:38 UTC, Dennis wrote:
> I was thinking it could be improved by either allowing 
> `@"string"` attributes, similar to `@identifier`, or by 
> allowing a string literal after the `unittest` keyword:
>
> ```
> unittest "Johny" {
>     // Has @("Johny") as first UDA
> }
> ```
>
> This would provide a more ergonomic, standardized way of naming 
> tests, and it's a very simple parser change (there's currently 
> nothing allowed between `unittest {`).
>
> In many other languages, unittests are regular functions with 
> names, but 
> [Zig-test](https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Zig-Test) 
> has this syntax for comparison:
>
> ```Zig
> test "Johny" {
> }
> ```
>
> Question to the community: do you name tests, and do you like 
> the idea?

Personal vote: We write unittest names with spaces in, so 
`unittest "the test" { }` would be very nice.

The place that the string gets used is when invoking the test 
directly: `build/TestRunner 'foo.bar.the test'`.