Hello! I'm using dmd 0.178. I'm having trouble getting the unittest section of a class template to execute. I have two files:

----> main.d <----

import other;

int main( )
{
  Foo!(int) my_foo = new Foo!(int);
  return( 0 );
}

----> other.d <----

class Foo(T) {
  unittest {
    assert( 1 == 0 );
  }
};

I compile this program using 'dmd -unittest main.d other.d'. It compiles without error but when it executes there is no assertion failure. However, if I move the definition of class Foo(T) into main.d (and throw away other.d) I *do* get the assertion failure. Am I doing something wrong? Is this supposed to work?

I'm also noticing that the unittest section isn't as useful in a template as it is in a non-template. It's awkward writing unittests generically without knowledge of a specific type T. Is this "the way it is" or is there some nice programming technique that I should be using here? I find myself thinking about writing a separate test program (C++ style) where I can work with specific specializations of the template.

Peter

Peter C. Chapin <pchapin@sover.net> schrieb:
> Hello! I'm using dmd 0.178. I'm having trouble getting the unittest section of a class template to execute. I have two files:
>
> ----> main.d <----
>
> import other;
>
> int main( )
> {
>   Foo!(int) my_foo = new Foo!(int);
>   return( 0 );
> }
>
> ----> other.d <----
>
> class Foo(T) {
>   unittest {
>     assert( 1 == 0 );
>   }
> };
>
> I compile this program using 'dmd -unittest main.d other.d'. It compiles without error but when it executes there is no assertion failure. However, if I move the definition of class Foo(T) into main.d (and throw away other.d) I *do* get the assertion failure. Am I doing something wrong? Is this supposed to work?

Please file a bug report:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues

Thomas

Peter C. Chapin wrote:
> Hello! I'm using dmd 0.178. I'm having trouble getting the unittest section of a class template to execute. I have two files:
> 
> ----> main.d <----
> 
> import other;
> 
> int main( )
> {
>   Foo!(int) my_foo = new Foo!(int);
>   return( 0 );
> }
> 
> ----> other.d <----
> 
> class Foo(T) {
>   unittest {
>     assert( 1 == 0 );
>   }
> };
> 
> I compile this program using 'dmd -unittest main.d other.d'. It compiles without error but when it executes there is no assertion failure. However, if I move the definition of class Foo(T) into main.d (and throw away other.d) I *do* get the assertion failure. Am I doing something wrong? Is this supposed to work?
> 
> I'm also noticing that the unittest section isn't as useful in a template as it is in a non-template. It's awkward writing unittests generically without knowledge of a specific type T. Is this "the way it is" or is there some nice programming technique that I should be using here? I find myself thinking about writing a separate test program (C++ style) where I can work with specific specializations of the template.
> 
> Peter

While this is most certainly a bug, for the meantime you could try writing a module level unittest block for your template.  Something like:

# class Foo (T) {
#   // ...
# }
# unittest {
#   // ...
# }

You won't be writing a "generic" test, but you should be able to check the particular things you're wanting to.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop@kuehne.cn> wrote in news:slrnepaeuk.8ki.gast@birke.kuehne.cn:

> Please file a bug report:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues

Done.

Peter

Chris Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji@gmail.com> wrote in news:en3n33$1vck$1@digitaldaemon.com:

> While this is most certainly a bug, for the meantime you could try writing a module level unittest block for your template.  Something like:
> 
> # class Foo (T) {
> #   // ...
> # }
> # unittest {
> #   // ...
> # }

That's cool. I didn't realize you could do that. This has the advantage in this case of not requiring the unittest block to be generic. I find building completely generic tests that are also reasonably exhaustive to be something of a challenge.

Peter

Peter C. Chapin wrote:
> Hello! I'm using dmd 0.178. I'm having trouble getting the unittest section of a class template to execute. I have two files:
> 
> ----> main.d <----
> 
> import other;
> 
> int main( )
> {
>   Foo!(int) my_foo = new Foo!(int);
>   return( 0 );
> }
> 
> ----> other.d <----
> 
> class Foo(T) {
>   unittest {
>     assert( 1 == 0 );
>   }
> };
> 
> I compile this program using 'dmd -unittest main.d other.d'. It compiles without error but when it executes there is no assertion failure. However, if I move the definition of class Foo(T) into main.d (and throw away other.d) I *do* get the assertion failure. Am I doing something wrong? Is this supposed to work?
> 
> I'm also noticing that the unittest section isn't as useful in a template as it is in a non-template. It's awkward writing unittests generically without knowledge of a specific type T. Is this "the way it is" or is there some nice programming technique that I should be using here? I find myself thinking about writing a separate test program (C++ style) where I can work with specific specializations of the template.
> 
> Peter

In my experiments with D, I've found that you must instantiate the templated class in order to get the unittest to run.  I don't know if it's one unit test execution per instantiation or one unit test run for each complete type (such as T=int, T=char, etc...).  I'd guess the latter.