Parallel execution of unittests

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 4/30/14, 10:01 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I'm all for parallelizing all unittest blocks that are pure, as doing
> so would be safe, but I think that we're making a big mistake if we try
> and insist that all unittest blocks be able to be run in parallel. Any
> that aren't pure are not guaranteed to be parallelizable, and any which
> access system resources or other global, mutable state stand a good
> chance of breaking.

There are a number of assumptions here: (a) most unittests that can be 
effectively parallelized can be actually inferred (or declared) as pure; 
(b) most unittests that cannot be inferred as pure are likely to break; 
(c) it's a big deal if unittests break. I question all of these 
assumptions. In particular I consider unittests that depend on one 
another an effective antipattern that needs to be eradicated.

Andrei