Skip to content

Make it more clear which module is being tested when running cargo test #9195

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 24, 2021
Merged

Make it more clear which module is being tested when running cargo test #9195

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
70d54be
Make it more clear which module is being tested when running cargo test
guswynn Feb 21, 2021
04c8372
fix test suite
guswynn Feb 21, 2021
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
21 changes: 19 additions & 2 deletions src/cargo/ops/cargo_test.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ use std::ffi::OsString;

use crate::core::compiler::{Compilation, CompileKind, Doctest, UnitOutput};
use crate::core::shell::Verbosity;
use crate::core::Workspace;
use crate::core::{TargetKind, Workspace};
use crate::ops;
use crate::util::errors::CargoResult;
use crate::util::{CargoTestError, Config, ProcessError, Test};
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -85,7 +85,24 @@ fn run_unit_tests(
} in compilation.tests.iter()
{
let test = unit.target.name().to_string();
let exe_display = path.strip_prefix(cwd).unwrap_or(path).display();

let test_path = unit.target.src_path().path().unwrap();
let exe_display = if let TargetKind::Test = unit.target.kind() {
format!(
"{} ({})",
test_path
.strip_prefix(unit.pkg.root())
.unwrap_or(&test_path)
.display(),
Copy link
Contributor Author

@guswynn guswynn Feb 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this returns an opaque struct that implements Display, which I think makes it harder to collapse these 2 format!'s into 1 unless I to_string() this call and the "unittests" &has str, let me know what people would prefer

Copy link
Member

@alexcrichton alexcrichton Feb 23, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nah this seems fine I think, no need to worry too much about perf here!

path.strip_prefix(cwd).unwrap_or(path).display()
)
} else {
format!(
"unittests ({})",
path.strip_prefix(cwd).unwrap_or(path).display()
)
};

let mut cmd = compilation.target_process(path, unit.kind, &unit.pkg, *script_meta)?;
cmd.args(test_args);
if unit.target.harness() && config.shell().verbosity() == Verbosity::Quiet {
Expand Down