On 2011-12-31 21:56, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, December 31, 2011 16:06:49 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
BTW, what would be so wrong if the unit tests for the standard library
displayed a nice report when finished?
My primary issue here is that I don't think that we should be adding stuff to
Phobos which is essentially a new unit test framework on top of the built in
one. If 3rd party stuff wants to do that. Fine. But the standard library should
use the standard facilities. If the standard facilities aren't sufficient, then
they should be improved.
First, that's how programming works. You build new abstractions on top
of existing ones. Second, I would called the built in support for unit
testing in D a "unit test framework". If add a unit test framework to
Phobos it would be standard facilities and it wouldn't be a problem.
As for a "nice report," I don't see anything wrong with just using the stack
traces (which include the file, line number, and error message of the assertion
failure). That's all the information that's needed. Anything else is
superfluous IMHO. Now, if there were something nicer that could be generally
agreed upon and added to druntime such that the standard unit test facilities
used it, then fine. I don't see any point to it, but at least in that case, the
standard library is still using the standard unit test framework. What I
really don't want to see is Phobos essentially building a new unit test
framework on top of the existing one. Any issues that need to be addressed
with the unit test framework for the standard library should be addressed in
the standard framework. Any additional framework stuff should be left to 3rd
parties.
- Jonathan M Davis
What's wrong with being able to run the unit tests from your editor,
have the unit test framework output HTML (or similar), displayed in your
editor and then you can click on links in the stack trace to get to the
source code. If you don't see why that's useful that we can just end
this discussion now.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
