Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 07/14/2010 08:58 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Frankly, I don't think a configurable option is a good idea. Druntime
has a lot of user configurability, and as far as I can tell, absolutely
none of it has ever been used. It just adds complexity, both to the code
and the documentation.
I agree. But also simple does not mean crappy. I think there's too
much talk around a simple matter:
======
Assertion failure should abort the current unittest block.
======
Do we all agree about the above?
Not me.
We keep on discussing how the usefulness and informativeness of
assertion failures falls off a cliff after the first failure, and I
can't seem to hear loud and clear that we all want this same thing.
So we've been through these steps:
1. Crappy: failure to assert causes the program to abort.
Agreed.
2. Awful: assert is hacked inside unittests to essentially be writeln,
all unittests run regardless. Programs claims success upon exit.
This was a bug, nobody intended this behavior.
3. Mediocre: assert continues to be hacked inside unittests to
essentially be writeln + set a flag. Programs exit with errors if the
flag was set.
Yes, I think this is the correct behavior.
NOT YET:
4. DESIRED: assert is NOT hacked, any failing assert ends the current
unittest, the failure message is printed, execution continues with the
next unittest, program ends with error code if at least one assert
failed, everybody's happy.
Everybody's happy except the guys like me who want to run all the unit
tests in one go.
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
