On 10/08/2014 11:37 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
Lately, I find myself wondering, if I should add parameterized unit
tests to std.string, because the last few bugs I fixed where not caught
by tests, as the test-data was not good enough. I know random data is
not perfect either, but it would
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 06:54:42 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On 10/08/2014 11:37 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
Lately, I find myself wondering, if I should add parameterized
unit
tests to std.string, because the last few bugs I fixed where
not caught
by tests, as the test-data was not
On 10/14/2014 10:38 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
well quite a nice and big library. You add the benchmark feature, get a
merged into phobos and I will gladly use it to test std.string.
Not sure whether a random testing library belongs into phobos.
On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 12:17:05 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On 10/14/2014 10:38 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
well quite a nice and big library. You add the benchmark
feature, get a
merged into phobos and I will gladly use it to test std.string.
Not sure whether a random testing
On Friday, 10 October 2014 at 14:20:39 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 10/10/14 10:09, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
This will work for me private project, but I want this in
std.string.
Why wouldn't this working std.string?
because, this would require changing the phobos unittester, doing
On 08/10/14 23:37, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
Lately, I find myself wondering, if I should add parameterized unit
tests to std.string, because the last few bugs I fixed where not caught
by tests, as the test-data was not good enough. I know random data is
not perfect either, but it would be
On Friday, 10 October 2014 at 06:39:25 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I think you should use a UDA's instead. The a unit test
framework can, hopefully, handle this automatically.
This will work for me private project, but I want this in
std.string.
On 10/10/14 10:09, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
This will work for me private project, but I want this in std.string.
Why wouldn't this working std.string?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 00:13:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
If you love your braces you gotta love your indentation. They
come together... -- Andrei
I guess you're right, but back to the topic.
Has anyone tried something similar for phobos? (I couldn't find
anything)
Does
On 10/9/14, 1:01 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 00:13:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
If you love your braces you gotta love your indentation. They come
together... -- Andrei
I guess you're right, but back to the topic.
Has anyone tried something similar
Am Thu, 09 Oct 2014 08:11:33 -0700
schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org:
On 10/9/14, 1:01 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 00:13:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
If you love your braces you gotta love your indentation. They come
On 10/9/14, 9:36 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Thu, 09 Oct 2014 08:11:33 -0700
schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org:
On 10/9/14, 1:01 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 00:13:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
If you love your braces you gotta
On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 16:36:35 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
+1, std.benchmark should be revived.
-1, This really does not solve my problem. I need a parameterized
unit test facility aka. Haskell QuickCheck with the additional
benchmarking feature that allows me/us to track performance
I get the bracing point, but how does this translate to my unit
testing (quickcheck) problem?
On 10/9/14, 9:57 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 16:36:35 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
+1, std.benchmark should be revived.
-1, This really does not solve my problem. I need a parameterized unit
test facility aka. Haskell QuickCheck with the additional
Lately, I find myself wondering, if I should add parameterized
unit tests to std.string, because the last few bugs I fixed where
not caught by tests, as the test-data was not good enough. I know
random data is not perfect either, but it would be good addition
IMO.
Additionally, I thought
On 10/8/14, 2:37 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
version(unittest_benchmark) {
unittest {
No need for the outer braces :o). -- Andrei
On Wednesday, 8 October 2014 at 23:31:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/8/14, 2:37 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
version(unittest_benchmark) {
unittest {
No need for the outer braces :o). -- Andrei
I just love my braces.
If that's gone be the most negative comment, I will have a
On 10/8/14, 4:44 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 October 2014 at 23:31:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/8/14, 2:37 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
version(unittest_benchmark) {
unittest {
No need for the outer braces :o). -- Andrei
I just love my braces.
If you
19 matches
Mail list logo
