Le 2010-07-15 à 18:00, Walter Bright a écrit :
>> 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.
I think this is the root of the misunderstanding. Either you consider each
assert grouped in a unittest blocks to be a unit test in itself; or you
consider each unittest block to be a test with multiple possible points of
failure across the path of the test.
The former is best illustrated this way:
unittest {
assert(sqrt(16) == 4);
assert(sqrt(4) == 2);
assert(sqrt(1) == 1);
}
Knowing which assertion fails in the given test might help to solve the
problem, so it's legitimate in my view.
And here's an illustration of a second test modelling a sequence of events. If
one of these test fails, all others will fail too because they depend on each
other:
unittest {
S s = new S;
s.giveMeAName();
assert(s.fileName);
s.value = 1;
assert(s.value == 1);
assert(s.needsToBeSaved);
s.save();
assert(!s.needsToBeSaved);
s.value = 2;
assert(s.value == 2);
assert(s.needsToBeSaved);
s.revert();
assert(s.value == 1);
assert(!s.needsToBeSaved);
...
}
So here you only need to know about the first error, and the rest is garbage.
It also highlights another problem about the current behaviour: what happens if
one of the functions called in this test throws an exception? My guess is that
it would abort unit tests for the whole module... I don't think anyone wants
that.
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.com/
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
