Extending unittests [proposal] [Proof Of Concept]

[David Piepgrass]

> However, what's truly insane IMHO is continuing to run a 
> unittest block after
> it's already had a failure in it. Unless you have exceedingly 
> simplistic unit
> tests, the failures after the first one mean pretty much 
> _nothing_ and simply
> clutter the results.

I disagree. Not only are my unit tests independent (so of course 
the test runner should keep running tests after one fails) but 
often I do want to keep running after a failure.

I like the BOOST unit test library's approach, which has two 
types of "assert": BOOST_CHECK and BOOST_REQUIRE. After a 
BOOST_CHECK fails, the test keeps running, but BOOST_REQUIRE 
throws an exception to stop the test. When testing a series of 
inputs in a loop, it is useful (for debugging) to see the 
complete set of which ones succeed and which ones fail. For this 
feature (continuation) to be really useful though, it needs to be 
able to output context information on failure (e.g. "during 
iteration 13 of input group B").