Michel Fortin, el 16 de julio a las 22:37 me escribiste:
>
> Le 2010-07-16 à 21:03, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
>
> >> My thought is, that we might be running into issues because the idea of
> >> a unit test is being conflated with a function. What we really want is a
> >> collection of blocks of code that that are all run and if any of them
> >> trigger an assert, that block stops and the tests as a whole are
> >> considered to have failed.
> >>
> >> As a point to start from, how about allow unittest as a statement type?
> >>
> >> foreach(item; collection) unittest { asssert(foobar(item)); }
> >
> > Regardless of whether you consider the assertion or the unittest block as
> > the
> > unit test (and I would certainly choose the latter), I don't see any point
> > to
> > this.
>
> Walter had a point... what if you want to test multiple outputs of the same
> function on one go? Here's an example:
>
> unittest {
> int[3] result = makeSomeTable(399, 383, 927);
> assert(result[0] == 281);
> assert(result[1] == 281);
> assert(result[2] == 281);
> }
>
> Here, each assert is independent one from another and knowing that the first
> and the third fails but not the second might help diagnose the problem.
>
> I think Jonathan's idea is quite on the spot. It'd allow you to write this:
>
> unittest {
> int[3] result = makeSomeTable(399, 383, 927);
> unittest { assert(result[0] == 281); }
> unittest { assert(result[1] == 281); }
> unittest { assert(result[2] == 281); }
> }
>
> and each "unittest assert" becomes an independent test that may fail but
> without interrupting the flow of the outside scope. The compiler could expand
> it like this:
>
> unittest {
> int[3] result = makeSomeTable(399, 383, 927);
>
> try
> assert(result[0] == 281);
> catch (AssertionError e)
> __unitTestLogFailure(e);
>
> try
> assert(result[1] == 281);
> catch (AssertionError e)
> __unitTestLogFailure(e);
>
> try
> assert(result[2] == 281);
> catch (AssertionError e)
> __unitTestLogFailure(e);
> }
>
> And now you have a log entry for each failed assertion, because they're
> independent unit tests.
>
> It'd also help reduce verbosity to not require the braces for one-statement
> unit tests.
Use a library function!
unittest {
int[3] result = makeSomeTable(399, 383, 927);
check(result[0] == 281);
check(result[1] == 281);
check(result[2] == 281);
}
--
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<Damian_Des> Me anDa MaL eL CaPSLoCK
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
