Phoenix Himself
Phoenix Himself
I've already implemented something similar... a `test` block, that can be named and executed. Testing all already works in paralel. ```js test validate_something { const something = some_funtion() assert(something) }...
@Mte90 You are talking about this version, right? > test "Validate that another_function works properly" { > const another = another_funtion() > assert(another) > } The one with text instead...
Yeah it makes sense where `main` exists. It's a similar concept. Functionality wise in #865 `test` works the same way as `main` (but has no args). The difference is that...
Ah I see... @lens0021 . For me this syntax looks like [Jest.js library](https://jestjs.io/docs/getting-started) which is the testing standard in web dev.
@KrosFire I've already implemented the stripping the code in `main` block and other non-relevent `test` blocks in #865 I think that I should think about how to implement the running...
From what I see Jest accepts running a subset of tests by providing a substring that matches test's description. We can implement this approach.
This could enable developers to integrate the compiler better with their own projects. They could use ABI that we could expose. It's a nice feature but not a priority
I agree with you guys @hdwalters @mks-h. There is no need to create new repositories. The library form factor can be achieved with creating a `lib.rs` and adding appropriate entries...
We should release 0.5.1 patch for this and some other weird problems that we find