DUnit: Advanced unit testing toolkit.

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-09-26 13:12, Dicebot wrote:

> I was saying that if you want to have some tests independent, it makes
> much more sense to do it this way:
>
> ```
> @test("foo") unittest
> {
>      assert(1 == 1);
> }
>
> @test("bar") unittest
> {
>      assert(1 == 2);
> }
> ```
>
> ..and let tests within one block terminate on first failure. That should
> integrate better with existing tooling when no external testing
> library/framework is connected.

Exactly. I guess I misunderstood you. Although I would consider "having 
lot of small independent annotated unit-test blocks" be basically what 
you're showing above.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg