On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Michel Fortin wrote: > Le 2010-07-06 à 11:28, Sean Kelly a écrit : > >> On Jul 5, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote: >>> >>> Sean Kelly wrote: >>>> That's probably my fault. >>> >>> Every team needs one of those people. Thanks for filling that role. >> >> I like to maintain a steady level of failure to keep things positive ;-) >> >> How about this... the unittest handler only returns an error code and if >> it's nonzero then the app won't run. > > This is what I was expecting the change would do originally. Running the > program should be conditional to the unit tests being successful, otherwise > it's too easy to ignore them. > > Another way to put it is: do you want your failed unit tests to behave as > warnings or as errors? I choose errors.
Yeah, the only thing I've been wondering about is whether there's a case where the unittests would want to return 0 but have the app still not run. I thought maybe with a custom build meant to run unit tests, but in that case I'd have an empty main() that simply returned 0 and would specify that main should run. Still trying to decide whether there are any justifiable cases that the new behavior wouldn't cover. _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
