pkg/unittest: config refactor

pkg/unittest/test/unittest_test.dart

Index: pkg/unittest/test/unittest_test.dart
diff --git a/pkg/unittest/test/unittest_test.dart b/pkg/unittest/test/unittest_test.dart
index e0127bd6d507f6de64f5bc38d49c96252005cb71..d28f647a14d0947c94776b0e2bd6663c86e5a1a0 100644
--- a/pkg/unittest/test/unittest_test.dart
+++ b/pkg/unittest/test/unittest_test.dart
@@ -17,7 +17,6 @@ import 'package:unittest/unittest.dart';
 var tests; // array of test names
 var expected; // array of test expected results (from buildStatusString)
 var actual; // actual test results (from buildStatusString in config.onDone)
-var _testconfig; // test configuration to capture onDone
 
 Future _defer(void fn()) {
   return new Future.of(fn);
@@ -54,7 +53,7 @@ class TestConfiguration extends Configuration {
   String teardown = ''; // the name of the test group teardown function, if any
 
   // The port to communicate with the parent isolate
-  SendPort _port;
+  final SendPort _port;
   String _result;
 
   TestConfiguration(this._port);
@@ -73,7 +72,9 @@ class TestConfiguration extends Configuration {
 
 runTest() {
   port.receive((testName, sendport) {
-    configure(_testconfig = new TestConfiguration(sendport));
+    var _testconfig= new TestConfiguration(sendport);
+    config = _testconfig;

[gram, 2013/03/25 17:09:19]

I wonder if config is not too generic a name and might result in collisions
(yes, you can argue the same about configure() but I intuitively feel that is
less likely a problem). Maybe we should call this something else like
testConfig.

[kevmoo-old, 2013/03/25 17:11:52]

or go all the way and call it unittestConfiguration

It's not like this is referenced a lot.

or testConfiguration

I have a paranoia about abbreviations in public API, but I'm open to discussion.

+
     if (testName == 'single correct test') {
       test(testName, () => expect(2 + 3, equals(5)));
     } else if (testName == 'single failing test') {