On 2012-03-10 17:58, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
2. As long as unit tests are properly isolated, then it's unlikely to be a big issue, and even if it _is_ problem, it's only a problem as long as tests are failing. So, while this may cause problems in some cases, it's still arguably worth it, since the _first_ test failure is still completely valid (as it is now), and the rest are _likely_ to be valid, so you'd generally be getting more information than before.
Yeah, it's only a problem when a test is failing. But I don't want the whole unit test run to potentially crash because of a failing unit test.
If it's a big enough problem, it could probably be made so that AssertErrors are treated differently in unit tests such that they _are_ guaranteed to hit destructors, scope statements, and finally. But the basic design of Errors is that they're supposed to be unrecoverable, so skipping all of those isn't generally an issue. And given that can get Errors thrown from nothrow functions, running them might actually do funny things in some cases, because the assumptions surrounding nothrow have been effectively violated. - Jonathan M Davis
I understand that you're not supposed to catch errors but this needs to be fixed somehow. I don't know what's the best solution would be but I do know we need to find one.
-- /Jacob Carlborg
