You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
We usually use table driven in unit test. Here is a simple example. Our problem is I can't run single test case. If one test failed and I want to run it again. I have to comment out all other test case, then run the whole xxx_Test() function.
Describe the solution you'd like
Support run the single test case in table driven unit test like subtest today.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Adding more detail. The screenshot below shows a "traditional" test approach using t.Run() for sub-tests, and an equivalent table-driven approach. In the traditional approach, individual sub-tests can be executed directly from vscode by clicking the "run test" label that appears. It would be amazing if the same thing were possible in the table driven approach, i.e. if vscode could recognise that each entry in the slice being ranged represents a sub-test, and provided a separate "run test" label for it by the struct definition.
Clearly it wouldn't be possible to support arbitrarily complex non-constant arguments for t.Run, or arbitrarily complex table-driven test implementations, but I'd have thought that it should be possible to support tests with a single t.Run call, where the name references a struct field in a slice which is being ranged? Being able to do this would be incredibly useful!
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
We usually use table driven in unit test. Here is a simple example. Our problem is I can't run single test case. If one test failed and I want to run it again. I have to comment out all other test case, then run the whole xxx_Test() function.
Describe the solution you'd like
Support run the single test case in table driven unit test like subtest today.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: