alkass / polish Goto Github PK

View Code? Open in Web Editor NEW

52.0 52.0 8.0 871 KB

Testing Framework for Rust

Home Page: https://crates.io/crates/polish

License: MIT License

Rust 98.14% Shell 1.63% Makefile 0.22%

rust test-driven-development testing-framework

polish's People

Stargazers

Watchers

Forkers

alshakero humanenginuity ktp-forked-repos tamuhey ajunlonglive standardgalactic playfloor iq-scm

polish's Issues

Reducing test output verbosity

The output when running tests, while nicely formatted, is very verbose. Is there a way to reduce the output to just the name of each test run and its status?

For example, I have two tests defined as follows:

use super::*;
use polish::test_case::{TestRunner, TestCaseStatus, TestCase};
use polish::logger::Logger;

#[test]
fn tests() {
    TestRunner::new().run_tests(vec![
        TestCase::new("BrakeAmt::new()",
                      "calling with no input succeeds",
                      Box::new(|_logger: &mut Logger| -> TestCaseStatus {

            // GIVEN the method under test
            let expected_result = FrictBrakeAmt(Unorm::default());
            let sut = FrictBrakeAmt::new;

            // WHEN a BrakeAmt is created
            let result = sut();

            // THEN the request should succeed, containing the expected value
            match result == expected_result {
                true  => TestCaseStatus::PASSED,
                false => TestCaseStatus::FAILED,
            }
        })),

        TestCase::new("BrakeAmt::from_unorm()",
                      "calling with a unorm value succeeds",
                      Box::new(|_logger: &mut Logger| -> TestCaseStatus {

            // GIVEN the method under test
            let test_value = 0.42;
            #[allow(result_unwrap_used)]
            let unorm = Unorm::from_f64(test_value).unwrap();
            let expected_result = FrictBrakeAmt(unorm);
            let sut = FrictBrakeAmt::from_unorm;

            // WHEN a BrakeAmt is created
            let result = sut(unorm);

            // THEN the request should succeed, containing the expected value
            match result == expected_result {
              true  => TestCaseStatus::PASSED,
              false => TestCaseStatus::FAILED,
            }
        })),
    ]);
}

They yield the following output:

running 1 test
Starting BrakeAmt::new() at 14:39:10 on 2017-12-21
Ended BrakeAmt::new() at 14:39:10 on 2017-12-21
calling with no input succeeds ... ✅
0 PASS  0 FAIL  0 WARN  0 INFO
Starting BrakeAmt::from_unorm() at 14:39:10 on 2017-12-21
Ended BrakeAmt::from_unorm() at 14:39:10 on 2017-12-21
calling with a unorm value succeeds ... ✅
0 PASS  0 FAIL  0 WARN  0 INFO

BrakeAmt::new() (calling with no input succeeds) ... 1ns
BrakeAmt::from_unorm() (calling with a unorm value succeeds) ... 1ns

Ran 2 test(s) in 2ns
2 Passed  0 Failed  0 Skipped
test types::unit_tests::tests ... ok

test result: ok. 1 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out

The verbosity obscures the test results. Ideally, I'd like to see just a simple namespaced list with a global summary at the bottom (across all modules and workspace crates):

✅ chal::types::unit_tests::tests::BrakeAmt::new() (calling with no input succeeds) ... 1ns
✅ chal::types::unit_tests::tests::BrakeAmt::from_unorm() (calling with a unorm value succeeds) ... 1ns

Ran 2 test(s) in 2ns...  ok
2 Passed  0 Failed  0 Skipped

Possible?

Running multiple THEN's per test case

I have a test suite set up as follows:

#[test]
fn tests() {
    TestRunner::new()
        .set_module_path(module_path!())
        .set_attributes(TestRunnerAttributes.disable_final_stats | TestRunnerAttributes.minimize_output)
        .set_time_unit(TestRunnerTimeUnits.microseconds)
        .run_tests(vec![
            TestCase::new("App::run()", "yields arch width", Box::new(|_logger: &mut Logger| -> TestCaseStatus {
                // GIVEN an app
                let mock_width = 42;
                let expected_result = Ok::<String, Error>(format!("Hello, {}-bit world!", mock_width));
                let mock = MockArch::new(mock_width);
                let sut = App::new(&mock);

                // WHEN the app is run
                let result = sut.run();

                // THEN the result should contain the expected architecture width
                match result == expected_result {
                    true => TestCaseStatus::PASSED,
                    false => TestCaseStatus::FAILED,
                }
            })),
            TestCase::new("App::run()", "calls Info::width() once", Box::new(|_logger: &mut Logger| -> TestCaseStatus {
                // GIVEN an app
                let mock_width = 42;
                let mock = MockArch::new(mock_width);
                let sut = App::new(&mock);

                // WHEN the app is run
                let _ = sut.run();

                // THEN the app should have called Info::width() exactly once
                match mock.width_times_called.get() == 1 {
                    true => TestCaseStatus::PASSED,
                    false => TestCaseStatus::FAILED,
                }
            })),
        ]);
}

Instead of repeating nearly the entire test case, I would prefer to simply add an additional THEN clause to the end of the first test case, like so:

fn tests() {
    TestRunner::new()
        .set_module_path(module_path!())
        .set_attributes(TestRunnerAttributes.disable_final_stats | TestRunnerAttributes.minimize_output)
        .set_time_unit(TestRunnerTimeUnits.microseconds)
        .run_tests(vec![
            TestCase::new("App::run()", "yields arch width", Box::new(|_logger: &mut Logger| -> TestCaseStatus {
                // GIVEN an app
                let mock_width = 42;
                let expected_result = Ok::<String, Error>(format!("Hello, {}-bit world!", mock_width));
                let mock = MockArch::new(mock_width);
                let sut = App::new(&mock);

                // WHEN the app is run
                let result = sut.run();

                // THEN the result should contain the expected architecture width
                match result == expected_result {
                    true => TestCaseStatus::PASSED,
                    false => TestCaseStatus::FAILED,
                }

                // AND_THEN the app should have called Info::width() exactly once
                match mock.width_times_called.get() == 1 {
                    true => TestCaseStatus::PASSED,
                    false => TestCaseStatus::FAILED,
                }
            })),
        ]);
}

Obviously, this won't compile given the current signature. The multi-test test case becomes more important as the complexity of the tests increase, by keeping the amount of duplicated code to a minimum.

Your version is at 0.9, so I thought I would bring this up before you stabilize your API at 1.0, just in case it ends up being a breaking change.

Trying not to break the API, here is one idea that might work:

fn tests() {
    TestRunner::new()
        .set_module_path(module_path!())
        .set_attributes(TestRunnerAttributes.disable_final_stats | TestRunnerAttributes.minimize_output)
        .set_time_unit(TestRunnerTimeUnits.microseconds)
        .run_tests(vec![
            ResultTestCase::new("App::run()", "yields arch width", Box::new(|_logger: &mut Logger| -> Result<(), TestCaseStatus::FAILED>  {
                // GIVEN an app
                let mock_width = 42;
                let expected_result = Ok::<String, Error>(format!("Hello, {}-bit world!", mock_width));
                let mock = MockArch::new(mock_width);
                let sut = App::new(&mock);

                // WHEN the app is run
                let result = sut.run();

                // THEN the result should contain the expected architecture width
                test_case_assert_eq(match result, expected_result)?

                // AND_THEN the app should have called Info::width() exactly once
                test_case_assert_eq(mock.width_times_called.get(), 1)?
            })),
        ]);
}

The benefits are that the test fails at the exact line where the test fails. This means that a developer can read the error message and will know the precise issue without having to enter debug.
Contrasted with:

...
                let test_case_status = TestCaseStatus::FAILED;
                // THEN the result should contain the expected architecture width
                test_case_status = match result == expected_result {
                    true => TestCaseStatus::PASSED,
                    false => TestCaseStatus::FAILED,
                }
                // AND_THEN the app should have called Info::width() exactly once
                test_case_status = match mock.width_times_called.get() == 1 {
                    true => TestCaseStatus::PASSED,
                    false => TestCaseStatus::FAILED,
                }
                // AND_THEN ...
                ...

                // AND_THEN ...
                ...

                test_case_status
            })),

where a) state is required to be maintained by the developer, and b) in the event of a failure, the specific sub-test which failed is lost, necessitating c) a debug session.

Anyway, this is not urgent or anything--this is just a thought I wanted to share with you. Please let me know if you have thoughts on other ways to achieve this.

Recommend Projects

React

A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
Vue.js

🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
Typescript

TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
TensorFlow

An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
Django

The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
Laravel

A PHP framework for web artisans
D3

Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉

Recommend Topics

javascript

JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
web

Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
server

A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
Machine learning

Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
Visualization

Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
Game

Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.

Recommend Org

Facebook

We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
Microsoft

Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
Google

Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
Alibaba

Alibaba Open Source for everyone
D3

Data-Driven Documents codes.
Tencent

China tencent open source team.