On Thursday, 1 May 2014 at 19:22:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 5/1/14, 11:49 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2014-05-01 17:15, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
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.
Sure. But on the other hand, why should D not have a great
unit testing
framework built-in.
It should. My focus is to get (a) unittest names and (b)
parallel testing into the language ASAP.
Andrei
It is wrong approach. Proper one is to be able to define any sort
of test running system in library code while still being 100%
compatible with naive `dmd -unittest`. We are almost quite there,
only step missing is transferring attributes to runtime unittest
block reflection.
