unittests are really part of the build, not a special run

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d]

On 2015-04-01 21:28, Ary Borenszweig wrote:

> No, it's actually much simpler but less powerful. This is because the
> language is not as dynamic as Ruby. But we'd like to keep things as
> simple as possible.

Can't you implement that using macros?

> But right now you get these things:
>
> 1. You can generate many tests in a simple way:
>
> ~~~
> [1, 2, 3].each do |num|
>    it "works for #{num}" do
>      ...
>    end
> end
> ~~~
>
> 2. You get a summary of all the failures and the lines of the specs that
> failed. Also, you get errors similar to RSpec for matchers. And you get
> printed a command line for each failing spec so you can rerun it
> separately. These are the most useful RSpec features for me.
>
> 3. You can get dots for each spec or the name of the specs (-format
> option).
>
> 4. You can run a spec given its line number or a regular expression for
> its name.
>
> Eventually it will have more features, as the language evolves, but for
> now this has proven to be very useful :-)
>
> Another good thing about it being just a library is that others send
> pull requests and patches, and this is easier to understand than some
> internal logic built into the compiler (compiler code is always harder).

This sounds all great. But lowering groups and examples to classes and 
methods takes it to the next level.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg