• Daniel Yokomiso (51/51) Nov 25 2002 Hi,

"Daniel Yokomiso" <daniel_yokomiso yahoo.com.br> writes:

Hi,

    I think unittests should have an optional naming feature like:


class A {
    void doA() {
    }
    void doA(int b) {
    }
}
class B : A {
    void doA() {
    }
    void doB() {
    }
}

unittest (A) {
}
unittest (A.doA) {
}
unittest (A.doA(int)) {
}
unittest (B) {
}
unittest (B.doA) {
}
unittest (B.doB) {
}

or something like that. Usually unittests are associated to classes,
methods, or individual functions, via naming schemes. With this possibility
any tool could extract named bits of tests from a module, and use it to
create automatic documentation, or just show it to the user. It would be
better than javadoc capabilities, a doc tool for D could include contracts
and unittests when showing the documentation of a class, method or function.
    Another possibility would be allowing unittest declarations inside
functions as:


int sum(int left, int right) {
    unittest {
        assert(15 == sum(7 + 8));
    }
    return left + right;
}


or


int sum(int left, int right)
unittest {
    assert(15 == sum(7 + 8));
} body {
    return left + right;
}


    Best regards,
    Daniel Yokomiso.

"When you want to change the world, you don't see the dawn by getting up
early - you see it by not sleeping through the night."