On 1/27/14, 1:04 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/26/14 5:36 PM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 1/25/14, 7:55 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
There's this simple realization that unittests could (should?) be
considered an intrinsic part of the build process. In order for an
executable to be worth running, it should pass the regular semantic
checks and also the unittests, which in a sense are extended semantic
checks that fall outside the traditional charter of the compiler.
I can imagine someone who discovered a bug late at night, has a fix and
needs to upload the new executable as soon as possible: he quickly
comments all failing unit tests to make them pass. The next morning he
uncomments them and fixes them with tranquility.
The point being?
Andrei
That it's annoying if you can't build an executable because some tests
fail. Sometimes you know tests fail but you didn't have time to fix them
(but you did fix the code).
