On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 06:34:44 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
So you're saying to use the "unittest" keyword but with a UDA?
I think this is most reasonable compromise that does not harm
existing system.
Something I already do, but for unit tests. Well my idea for a
testing framework would work both for unit tests and other,
higher levels of test.
@describe("toMsec")
{
@it("returns the time in milliseconds") unittest
{
assert(true);
}
}
Which is exactly why I'd like to defer exact annotation to
library solution - exact requirements for such framework are very
different. I'd want to see something like this instead:
@name("Network test 2")
@requires("Network test 1") @cleanup!removeTemporaries
unittest
{
// do stuff
}
Have never liked that fancy description syntax of "smart" testing
frameworks.
