On 5/1/14, 4:41 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2014-04-30 22:41, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yah I think that's possible but I'd like the name to be part of the
function name as well e.g. unittest__%s.
Why is that necessary? To have the correct symbol name when debugging?
It's nice to have the name available in other tools (stack trace, debugger).
The Ruby syntax looks like this:
[snip]
The unit test runner can also print out a documentation, basically all
text in the "it" and "describe" parameters. Something like this:
https://coderwall-assets-0.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/picture/file/1949/rspec_html_screen.png
That's all nice, but I feel we're going gung ho with overengineering
already. If we give unittests names and then offer people a button
"parallelize unittests" to push (don't even specify the number of
threads! let the system figure it out depending on cores), that's a good
step to a better world.
Andrei
