• ElfQT (10/10) Sep 03 2005 Is it true that the first assert that fails breaks the execution?
• ElfQT (4/7) Sep 03 2005 Well, I figured it out that I can implement these on my own with a custo...
• ElfQT (3/6) Sep 03 2005 OK, or maybe not that nice, because I only can include __FILE__ and __LI...
• ElfQT (7/9) Sep 03 2005 As I begun to think about it, with the "nunit" unit testing framework (f...
• Charles (10/23) Sep 04 2005 Yea , built in unit tests seem a good idea, but there are serious

"ElfQT" <dethjunk yahoo.com> writes:

Is it true that the first assert that fails breaks the execution?
That's not a nice thing.

Unittest run should report all succeeding and failing cases in one run!

Also, assert badly needs a message (to write when assert fails) part.
Assert should report module,class,method not only the line number.

And for me, a bit strange that unittests will run on first execution. Should 
be a different run.
(If I am making a lib, do I have to make an executable out of it to unittest 
it?)

ElfQT

"ElfQT" <dethjunk yahoo.com> writes:

 Unittest run should report all succeeding and failing cases in one run!

 Also, assert badly needs a message (to write when assert fails) part.
 Assert should report module,class,method not only the line number.

Well, I figured it out that I can implement these on my own with a custom
unittest class.
(Using writefln, __FILE__, __LINE__)

ElfQT 

"ElfQT" <dethjunk yahoo.com> writes:

 Well, I figured it out that I can implement these on my own with a custom
 unittest class.
 (Using writefln, __FILE__, __LINE__)

OK, or maybe not that nice, because I only can include __FILE__ and __LINE__ 
at every single assert call, and not in the class doing the reporting...
(Since no #define or such. Should a mixin help?) 

"ElfQT" <dethjunk yahoo.com> writes:

 Also, assert badly needs a message (to write when assert fails) part.
 Assert should report module,class,method not only the line number.

As I begun to think about it, with the "nunit" unit testing framework (for 

the AssertEquals(<ValueofVariable>, <ExpectedValue>, <message>) format 
become the standard,
because then the framework is able to report the value of the variable 
failing and the expected value.

ElfQT 

"Charles" <noone nowhere.com> writes:

 Unittest run should report all succeeding and failing cases in one run!

Yea I agree , I think most people do.

 And for me, a bit strange that unittests will run on first execution.

Should
 be a different run.

Yea , built in unit tests seem a good idea, but there are serious
limitations to the existing ones , I think most people will just build their
own framework.

Charlie

"ElfQT" <dethjunk yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfd0li$kql$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Is it true that the first assert that fails breaks the execution?
 That's not a nice thing.

 Unittest run should report all succeeding and failing cases in one run!

 Also, assert badly needs a message (to write when assert fails) part.
 Assert should report module,class,method not only the line number.

 And for me, a bit strange that unittests will run on first execution.

Should
 be a different run.
 (If I am making a lib, do I have to make an executable out of it to

unittest
 it?)

 ElfQT