Named unittests

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Sunday, 19 May 2019 at 16:17:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/18/2019 10:52 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Wouldn't the dependencies be built separately (i.e. with a 
>> different compiler invocation)?
>
> That's right. Also, running the unittests shouldn't be a time 
> consuming operation, so there shouldn't be an issue even if the 
> dependency unittests were run.

These aren't necessarily true in practice. Many D builds include 
third party code in the main invocation (dub calls this a 
"sourceLibrary" target type) and sometimes unittests are awfully 
slow.

But that said, I think we can run with it as a pilot program and 
see how it works, then review if the real world data confirms or 
debunks our ideas. Might have to reshuffle some unit tests with 
templates but that might be a good idea anyway to get more 
guarantees out of our code.