FWIW rdmd has a --main flag that adds a dummy main for just unittesting.
Andrei
Sean Kelly wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
