On Thursday, 8 October 2015 at 08:21:58 UTC, Robert burner
Schadek wrote:
This is the voting thread for inclusion of
std.experimental.testing into phobos.
PR: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3207
Dub: http://code.dlang.org/packages/unit-threaded
Doc: See CyberShadow/DAutoTest for up-to-date documentation
build
Formal Review Thread:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
Previous Thread:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
Please respond to this post with a comment starting with a
single "Yes"/"No" and optional explanation after that. Criteria
you are expected to evaluate as part of "Yes":
- is this functionality needed in Phobos
- is basic design sound (some breaking changes are OK for
std.experimental but not full redesign)
As usual, anyone can vote, but opinions of Phobos developers
hold more value.
Voting ends in 2 weeks, on Oktober 22.
No
a) Doesn't add enough value; I feel DIP83 (and also DIP82) are
more important and this library should wait then build on DIP83.
b) There'd be more bang for buck if we had good backtrace support
on all platforms when asserts fire.
c) Implements orthogonal functionality, as per Rikki's comments,
coupling a testing framework with implementation of coloured
output and report generation. Pretty output should wait until
available from other modules in Phobos.
d) API is clunky because lower-level components are not available.
e) Named unittests are nice but unless something like
unittest(name) is accepted it isn't worth it.
__FUNCITON__ already provides a UID that includes line number
information, which is 100x more useful than a name made up by Joe
Developer. If we get b) above then unittest names really become
unnecessary IMO.
bye,
stew
