[dmd-internals] changeset 455

[Walter Bright]

Sean Kelly wrote:
>
> I think the current behavior is a good first step, but should probably be modified a bit further.  For example:
>
>     void fnA()
>     {
>         assert( false, "fnA 1" );
>         assert( false, "fnA 2 ");
>     }
>
>     unittest
>     {
>         assert( false, "unittest 1" );
>         assert( false, "unittest 2" );
>         fnA();
>     }
>
>     unittest
>     {
>         assert( false, "unittest 3" );
>     }
>
>     void main()
>     {
>     
>     }
>
> Running this will print:
>
>     test.d(9): unittest 1
>     test.d(10): unittest 2
>     core.exception.AssertError at test.d(3): fnA 1
>
> So if an assert error occurs inside some code being tested, the app will still exit.

No, if an assert occurs lexically outside of a unittest block, the 
regular assert failure code will be called.

>   I tried modifying the unit testing code to eat the exception and continue, but then it simply prints:
>
>     test.d(9): unittest 1
>     test.d(10): unittest 2
>
> So the best we can currently do is move on to test another module--there's no way to execute the remaining unit tests within the module.  Could we perhaps have an array of unittests within the ModuleInfo struct instead of just a single function pointer?  Or is the rationale really that if implementation code throws, the app should assume it's in an invalid state and exit?
>   

It's simpler than that. The idea is if an assert fails within a unittest 
block, the unittests should continue. If an assert fails outside, then 
the app should stop.