Static unittests?

[monarch_dodra]

On Sunday, 18 August 2013 at 16:15:30 UTC, Borislav Kosharov 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 17 August 2013 at 17:48:04 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic 
> wrote:
>> On 8/17/13, Borislav Kosharov <boby_dsm at abv.bg> wrote:
>>> I really think that this should be added to the language, 
>>> because
>>> it doesn't break stuff and it is useful. And the 'static' 
>>> keyword
>>> is already used in many places like module imports and ifs.
>>
>> Have you tried using the new getUnitTests trait in the git-head
>> version? If not it will be in the 2.064 release.
>>
>> Btw such a 'static unittest' feature is certainly going to 
>> break code
>> because static can be applied as a label, for example:
>>
>> class C
>> {
>> static:
>>    void foo() { }
>>
>>    unittest { /* Test the foo method. */ }   // suddenly 
>> evaluated at
>> compile-time
>> }
>
> Oh I really haven't tough about that. Maybe, I will try this 
> new trait. Or another solution is to add a compiler switch that 
> will try to execute all the tests during compilation or 
> something.

Well, that assumes all your code is ctfe-able...

I've taken to doing something along the line of:

unittest
{
     void dg()
     {
         BODY OF UNITTEST
     }
     dg(); //test runtime
     assertCTFEable!dg; //test compiletime
}

It's a quick and easy way of testing both code paths, with 
minimal duplication and hassle.