www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 9730] New: Allow ddoc unittests to remotely reference declaration

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9730

           Summary: Allow ddoc unittests to remotely reference declaration
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx



I'm not sure how this would be implemented, but currently there is an IMO big
flaw with the unittest ddoc feature: you cannot detach the unittest from the
declaration that it's supposed to give an example for. This may not seem like a
bad thing on the surface (we like to keep unittest and code close together),
but consider this:

class A(T,U,V) {
    /**
     * My method.
     */
    void myMethod() { ... }

    /// Unittest ddoc
    unittest {
        // N.B.: we explicitly instantiate A with specific parameters.
        // Why? Because declaring A without specific parameters means
        // the example code is unhelpful, since the user can't actually
        // just write "auto a = new A();" outside of A's context!
        auto a = new A!(int, double, float)();

        doSomeTests(a);
        // Problem: this unittest will be duplicated across all
        // instantiations of A.
    }
}

This causes the unittest to be run for *every* instantiation of A, even though
it is identical in each case, since we are instantiating A explicitly. This
clashes with the idiom of putting per-instantiation unittests inside the class,
and explicit instantiation unittests *outside* (where it only gets run once, as
it should).

Maybe one way of solving this is to make use of the content of the ddoc comment
header of the unittest to refer to the fully-qualified method signature of the
method to document, for example:

class A(T,U,V) {
    /**
     * My method
     */
    void myMethod(int x) { ... }

    /**
     * My other method
     */
    void myMethod(float x) { ... }
}

///  ExampleFor: A.myMethod(int)
/// This example gets attached to A.myMethod(int)
unittest {
    auto a = new A!(int,float,real)();
    a.myMethod(123);
}

///  ExampleFor: A.myMethod(float)
/// This example gets attached to A.myMethod(float)
unittest {
    auto a = new A!(string,string,bool)();
    a.myMethod(1.61803);
}

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 15 2013
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9730


Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrej.mitrovich gmail.com



19:40:07 PDT ---


 class A(T,U,V) {
     /// 
     void myMethod() { ... }
 
     /// Unittest ddoc
     unittest {
         
     }
 }


Another alternative is to add the ability for template-nested unittests to only
run for specific instantiations. I'm thinking of using UDAs for this. What I
mean is:



 class A(T,U,V) {
     /// 
     void myMethod() { ... }
 
     /// Unittest that only runs for a specific instance
      A!(int, int, int)
     unittest {
         
     }
 }


This kills two birds with one stone: Avoids instantiating a lot of unittests,
and allows us to test-document methods inline.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 19 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9730




I like this idea. Now that we have UDAs, let's make good use of them!

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 20 2013
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9730




16:43:38 PDT ---
This feature is also important if we want to move our tests into a separate
module, but at the same time allow these tests to appear in the documentation.

For example:

-----
module mod.math;

///
int sum(int x, int y);
-----

-----
module mod.test;

///  (mod.math.sum)
unittest
{
    assert(sum(2, 2) == 4);
}
-----

In non-trivial modules which span hundreds (or thousands) of lines, it would be
useful to be able to extract the tests into another directory, while still
being able to use the documented unittests feature.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 16 2013