[Issue 4747] Make each unittest block a separate function that runs independently of the others
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4747 Mathias LANG changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||pro.mathias.l...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #7 from Mathias LANG --- Yes this has been resolved. --
[Issue 4747] Make each unittest block a separate function that runs independently of the others
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4747 Andrei Alexandrescu changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||bootcamp --
[Issue 4747] Make each unittest block a separate function that runs independently of the others
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4747 Andrei Alexandrescu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||and...@erdani.com --- Comment #6 from Andrei Alexandrescu --- Has this been resolved? --
[Issue 4747] Make each unittest block a separate function that runs independently of the others
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4747 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull CC||johannesp...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Johannes Pfau 2012-09-25 09:47:13 PDT --- Pull request: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1131 (Allows to run unit tests individually. Also prepares name support, but full support needs changes in lexer/parser) -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4747] Make each unittest block a separate function that runs independently of the others
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4747 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan M Davis 2012-09-25 09:37:58 PDT --- It makes it so that having named unittest blocks is less critical for stack traces, but having actual names for them would still me quite a bit better (it would also help for code organization, because it could document what the test was for). Regardless, the main point of this issue was always that the tests be indivdually callable. Names for them just makes that a _lot_ cleaner, but they'd have to be optional names regardless, because anything else would break tons and tons of code. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4747] Make each unittest block a separate function that runs independently of the others
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4747 --- Comment #3 from jens.k.muel...@gmx.de 2012-09-25 04:04:14 PDT --- But since unittests now have the line number in its name this issue is only concerned having the ability to call individual unittests. Right? Because now you can tell from the stack trace which unittest failed. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4747] Make each unittest block a separate function that runs independently of the others
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4747 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan M Davis 2012-09-25 03:51:40 PDT --- It has to do with naming unittest blacks, which is related both to stack traces and to calling unittest blocks independently. Recently, it _was_ fixed so that the functions generated for unittest blocks are named after the line number (and possibly file? - I don't know the exact naming scheme), which reduces the problem with regards to stack traces, but if you wanted to be able to call specific unittest blocks (say from a unit testing tool), then having actual names for each unittest block makes that work much better. The main thing though is to fix the issue where it's all or nothing for running a module's unit tests. When I created this request, I was under the incorrect understanding that there was one function for all of a module's unittest blocks, which isn't true, but it _is_ true that they can't be run independently at present, and if I understand correctly, some dmd changes are required to fix that. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4747] Make each unittest block a separate function that runs independently of the others
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4747 jens.k.muel...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jens.k.muel...@gmx.de --- Comment #1 from jens.k.muel...@gmx.de 2012-09-25 03:25:20 PDT --- I'm not sure but isn't your second point more related to stack traces? I mean if the stack trace would provide proper line numbers it was easy to find out which unittest failed. Further this only applies if all you have is a stack trace. That means if something was thrown you get the line number information. If there is a segfault or similar (division by zero) you currently have to run it under a debugger. I think this should be improved by providing better stack traces. Anyway the first point remains valid. unittests are often independent and it should be possible to execute them independently. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
