On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 15:43:35 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Hello,
A coworker mentioned the idea that unittests could be run in
parallel (using e.g. a thread pool). I've rigged things to run
in parallel unittests across modules, and that works well.
However, this is too coarse-grained - it would be great if each
unittest could be pooled across the thread pool. That's more
difficult to implement.
This brings up the issue of naming unittests. It's becoming
increasingly obvious that anonymous unittests don't quite scale
- coworkers are increasingly talking about "the unittest at
line 2035 is failing" and such. With unittests executing in
multiple threads and issuing e.g. logging output, this is only
likely to become more exacerbated. We've resisted named
unittests but I think there's enough evidence to make the
change.
Last but not least, virtually nobody I know runs unittests and
then main. This is quickly becoming an idiom:
version(unittest) void main() {}
else void main()
{
...
}
I think it's time to change that. We could do it the
non-backward-compatible way by redefining -unittest to instruct
the compiler to not run main. Or we could define another flag
such as -unittest-only and then deprecate the existing one.
Thoughts? Would anyone want to work on such stuff?
Andrei
An existing library implementation:
https://github.com/atilaneves/unit-threaded
