Phobos has recently gotten a primitive way to run betterC tests (https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6640).

Now, it would be really cool if we can annotate existing tests with e.g. `@betterCTest` and thus ensure that those tests work with -betterC (i.e. extract them and run them with a minimal test runner.

a) @betterC

Probably too popular and would lead to too many conflicts.

b) @TestBetterC
c) @betterCTest || @bettercTest

Would probably be defined a enum somewhere in `std.internal`

d) @("betterC")

A bit ugly and harder to work with. If we ever want to name the unittests in Phobos, this will make it harder.

At some point we might also want to test whether something runs even without any runtime (https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6641), so e.g. `@baremetalTest` might be defined too.

My favorite is (c) - any objections?

See also: https://github.com/dlang/tools/pull/357 (implementation of the test extraction filter for UDAs)

On 30/07/2018 2:21 AM, Seb wrote:
> 
> My favorite is (c) - any objections?

As long as its a enum/struct and is documented some place with DDOC, then none here :)

On Sunday, 29 July 2018 at 14:21:20 UTC, Seb wrote:
> Phobos has recently gotten a primitive way to run betterC tests (https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6640).
>
> Now, it would be really cool if we can annotate existing tests with e.g. `@betterCTest` and thus ensure that those tests work with -betterC (i.e. extract them and run them with a minimal test runner.

I don't really care as long is it contains the text "betterC" to ensure it's obvious at a glance what it's for.  Does in need to be in the global namespace, or will it be in a private import?

> At some point we might also want to test whether something runs even without any runtime (https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6641), so e.g. `@baremetalTest` might be defined too.

I suggest the term "freestanding" over "baremetal", though, if it still requires the C standard library, it's not really freestanding, so hopefully this means without the druntime and without *any* other dependencies.

Mike

On Sunday, 29 July 2018 at 14:21:20 UTC, Seb wrote:
> Phobos has recently gotten a primitive way to run betterC tests (https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6640).
>
> Now, it would be really cool if we can annotate existing tests with e.g. `@betterCTest` and thus ensure that those tests work with -betterC (i.e. extract them and run them with a minimal test runner.
>
> a) @betterC
>
> Probably too popular and would lead to too many conflicts.

How about @worksWithBetterC? This is specific enough

>
> b) @TestBetterC

This one is good too.

> c) @betterCTest || @bettercTest
>
> Would probably be defined a enum somewhere in `std.internal`

Thumb up.

>
> d) @("betterC")
>
> A bit ugly and harder to work with. If we ever want to name the unittests in Phobos, this will make it harder.

Thumb down.

>
> At some point we might also want to test whether something runs even without any runtime (https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6641), so e.g. `@baremetalTest` might be defined too.

Why not @noRuntime?

On 2018-07-29 16:21, Seb wrote:
> Phobos has recently gotten a primitive way to run betterC tests
> (https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6640).
>
> Now, it would be really cool if we can annotate existing tests with e.g.
> `@betterCTest` and thus ensure that those tests work with -betterC (i.e.
> extract them and run them with a minimal test runner.
>
> a) @betterC
>
> Probably too popular and would lead to too many conflicts.

Shouldn't be any conflict because the "betterC" symbol would be in a different module.

> b) @TestBetterC
> c) @betterCTest || @bettercTest
>
> Would probably be defined a enum somewhere in `std.internal`
>
> d) @("betterC")
>
> A bit ugly and harder to work with. If we ever want to name the
> unittests in Phobos, this will make it harder.

I really hate that this is possible to do with UDAs. We should avoid this as much as possible.

> At some point we might also want to test whether something runs even
> without any runtime (https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6641), so e.g.
> `@baremetalTest` might be defined too.
>
> My favorite is (c) - any objections?
>
> See also: https://github.com/dlang/tools/pull/357 (implementation of the
> test extraction filter for UDAs)

I would say, if it's only for internal use then it can be placed in `std.internal` with the `package` protection. If you want this to be used outside of Phobos then I recommend putting it in `core.attribute` in druntime, since that already exists.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Tuesday, 31 July 2018 at 10:09:08 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Shouldn't be any conflict because the "betterC" symbol would be in a different module.
> ...
> I would say, if it's only for internal use then it can be placed in `std.internal` with the `package` protection. If you want this to be used outside of Phobos then I recommend putting it in `core.attribute` in druntime, since that already exists.

Cool! std.internal.attributes and @betterC it is then:

https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6645

This should allow to gradually annotate more unittests in Phobos with @betterC (like we did with @safe or @nogc), and allow us to gradually increase the -betterC subset.