Yeah, this has been suggested before. I may just look into submitting a patch for it.
Sent from my iPhone On Jul 13, 2010, at 7:28 PM, Michel Fortin <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 2010-07-13 à 21:54, Walter Bright a écrit : > >> I received a litany of complaints about them. > > I think you misinterpreted a little. Those complains were about all unit > tests aborting at the first failing test. A better thing to do is to abort > the current unit test on assert, then proceed with the next one. This way all > unit tests are run, but only one error per test is reported. > > Reporting more than one error per unit test adds meaningless garbage to the > output output because the subsequent assertions are most of the time > dependent on the first one succeeding (and thus do not indicate a different > problem). > > Personally, I'm not against a complete halt after the first assertion: it's > simple and it forces you to fix the first bug it finds pronto. I understand > that it does not please everyone though: some people just like to have the > choice of which problem to fix first, or to get a general overview of the > situation. > > I think allowing one failed assertion per unit test is a good compromise. But > allow more than that and you're lost in the noise of irrelevant assertions. > > -- > Michel Fortin > [email protected] > http://michelf.com/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
