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

> 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

> 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?)

> 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
c# implementation)
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

> 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
>
>