Utah Valley University teaches D (using TDPL)

[Don]

Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 13:33:54 bearophile wrote:
>> Jonathan M Davis:
>>> Most of the rest (if not all of it) could indeed be done in a library.
>> I am not sure it could be done nicely too :-)
> 
> That would depend on what you're trying to do. Printing test success or failure 
> is as simple as adding the approprate scope statement to the beginning of each 
> unittest block. A bit tedious perhaps, but not hard.
> 
>>> Right now
>>> unit tests follow the unix convention of saying nothing on success,
>> That's an usability failure. Humans expect feedback, because you can't tell
>> apart "unittests run and succeed" from "unittests not even run". That Unix
>> convention is bad here. And Unix commands sometimes have a -v (verbose)
>> command that gives feedback, while D unittests don't have this option.
> 
> I'm afraid that I have to disagree there. Having all of the successes print out 
> would, in many cases, just be useless output flooding the console. I have no 
> problem with making it possible for unit tests to report success, but I wouldn't 
> want that to be the default. It's quite clear when a test fails, and that's what 
> is necessary in order to fix test failures.
> 
> I can see why a beginner might want the positive feedback that a test has 
> succeeded, but personally, I would just find it annoying. The only real advantage 
> would be that it would indicate where in the unit tests the program was, and 
> that's only particularly important if you have a _lot_ of them and they take a 
> long time to run.

I think:   "%d unit tests passed in %d modules"
would be enough.