On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 21:22:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 14:45:50 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
But unittests already have
names(http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/b15e94000f15), so the only
required change is to allow the user to specify that name.
This should be much simpler than adding entirely new fields.
And does not really help. Of all metadata that one may want to
attach to a test block, names are actually _least_ important in
practice. It will be matter of time until Andrei creates new
topic about adding descriptions to tests or way to mark flakey
ones. Better to invest into something that scales at least a
bit.
I think you and I work under different assumptions of the goals
for this feature. If we only want unittest names to be something
that can be printed when the unittest runner runs the unittests,
than a UDA with a string is indeed preferable. If we want
something that tools can actually use to refer to a specific
unittest, we need a proper identifier(yes, even though it can be
implemented in library code because D is Turing-complete...)
