Add option to `cargo check` to check all targets, including test code #3431

bruno-medeiros · 2016-12-20T15:48:05Z

Basically more or less the check version of cargo test --no-run

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

jonhoo · 2016-12-20T16:55:50Z

See also discussion following #3296 (comment) for motivation

alexcrichton · 2016-12-20T17:08:37Z

IIRC Cargo does support cargo test --test foo to check a particular test, but I think we need two more additions here:

Like with cargo rustc, --profile test. This'd allow cargo check --lib --profile test to test compiling the library with tests
Support cargo check --tests to just check all tests, etc. Also things like cargo check --bins, cargo check --examples, etc.

bruno-medeiros · 2016-12-20T21:09:30Z

Support cargo check --tests to just check all tests, etc. Also things like cargo check --bins, cargo check --examples, etc.

Actually, to be more precise: this should an option that checks all targets (lib, bin, test, examples, doc). The full-build equivalent (cargo test --no-run) does that already, it build all targets - not just test targets but bin, doc, examples, too. (dunno if that behaviour was the original intention, but it's good that it does that)

alexcrichton · 2016-12-21T00:36:07Z

Ah yeah that makes sense to me to have some form of as well. We may be able to emulate that with cargo check --all or something like that.

crumblingstatue · 2017-02-17T12:38:18Z

Don't know about checking tests specifically, but cargo build has the --all option to build all targets in a workspace. It feels unsymmetrical that cargo check doesn't have this option.

alexcrichton · 2017-02-17T17:10:26Z

I've added check --all in #3731, but it doesn't handle tests (e.g. the default current behavior), so I'm going to clleave this open.

jonhoo · 2017-03-17T19:38:13Z

@alexcrichton any idea when --all will get support for running test (or when we'll see --test)? It'd be really nice to have in the vim syntax checker (see neomake/neomake#843 (comment))

ehuss · 2017-03-17T20:49:28Z

Just a warning for whoever works on this, when the test harness is included (rustc --test), it disables the missing_docs lint. Also, it disables the "main function not found" error for binaries. I'm not sure how it will be implemented in the context of cargo check, but something to watch out for.

koivunej · 2017-03-24T08:43:02Z

I'd really like to see this implememented, but I can't really see how it should be implemented -- naively conditionally adding --test to rustc args in src/bin/check.rs was not the right solution.

Does someone already have a plan of how this should be implemented? If you do, and are too busy to work on this yourself, please share your thoughts so perhaps I or someone else could come up with at least the initial PR.

alexcrichton · 2017-03-24T15:04:04Z

@koivunej this is likely related to #3112 which @BenWiederhake is working on, and after that it'd be relatively easy to add --all to just apply to all targets.

BenWiederhake · 2017-03-24T15:11:35Z

Not sure how you think about interface consistency, but --all very often stands for "all packages", so this might be confusing.

alexcrichton · 2017-03-24T15:14:28Z

That's true yeah, we may want to hold off on implementing this just yet, just mentioning that it should be relatively easy to support with that added in #3112

koivunej · 2017-05-08T14:35:23Z

Just tried against latest nightly cargo 0.19.0-nightly (fa7584c14 2017-04-26) and it'd seem that cargo check --tests is supported, from help:

    --tests                      Check all tests

but it does not seem to check my #[test] function, as in cargo check && cargo check --tests && cargo test fails at last stage (cargo test) due to type checking error. As this issue is still open this is probably expected, as in --tests is for code in tests/ directory, not inline #[test] code?

BenWiederhake · 2017-05-08T16:36:46Z

--tests only means that the files in the tests/ folder are included. so yes, you are correct.

I have no idea how to apply check on the in-line #[test]s, but I guess it involves some feature-magic.

jonhoo · 2017-05-15T20:27:22Z

Having a --tests that actually checks all tests code would be a hugely welcome addition. In the current scheme of things, editors are generally forced to use cargo test --no-run if they want to provide error highlighting for all errors, which is quite unfortunate. @alexcrichton how much work is this likely to be?

alexcrichton · 2017-05-15T21:29:00Z

@jonhoo I think #4039 is a PR targeted at solving @koivunej's concern, although is that the feature you're thinking of?

jonhoo · 2017-05-15T21:33:42Z

Yes, that's exactly what I wanted. Thanks for the PR pointer!

thegranddesign · 2017-10-04T02:03:59Z

Just to give a newbie's perspective I would expect that cargo check --all would check everything. Period. If --all is intended to mean "all packages", then I'd suggest a --packages or --all-packages option instead which mirrors --all-features or --benches.

Consistency and intuitive APIs are important, especially for people just learning.

thegranddesign · 2017-10-04T02:05:41Z

I don't see that it was explicitly stated here, but I would also expect cargo check --tests or cargo check --docs to check documentation tests (and by extension cargo check --all should do the same).

Add unit test checking to `cargo check` This is an extension of PR #4039, fixing #3431, #4003, #4059, #4330. The fixes for #4059 can potentially be separated into a separate PR, though there may be some overlap. The general gist of the changes: - Add `--profile test` flag to `cargo check` that will enable checking of unit tests. - `--tests` will implicitly enable checking of unit tests within the lib (checks the same targets as `cargo test`). This affects the `check`, `test`, and `build` commands. - `--benches` behaves similarly by using the same targets as `cargo bench`. - Fix erroneously linking tests when run with `--test`. There is one thing I did not do because I wanted more feedback on what others think the expected behavior should be. What should the behavior of `--all-targets` be? This patch does not (yet) make any changes to its behavior. My initial thinking is that it should *add* a target of `--lib --bins --profile test`, but that essentially means the lib and bin targets will be checked twice (and thus any errors/warnings outside of `#[cfg(test)]` will appear twice, which may be confusing, and generally take twice as long to run). I can add that, but I think it would require adding a new `All` variant to `CompileFilter` so that the code in `generate_targets` can detect this scenario. I wanted feedback before making a more extensive change like that. The downside of not adding it is that `--all-targets` will ignore unit tests (if you don't specify `--profile test`). Summary of the profiles used with this patch: Command | Lib | Bin foo | Test t1 | Example e1 | Bench b1 | ------- | --- | ------- | ------- | ---------- | -------- | `check` | check | check | - | - | - | `check --profile test` | check_test† | check_test† | - | - | - | `check --lib` | check | - | - | - | - | `check --lib --profile test` | check_test† | - | - | - | - | `check --bin foo` | check | check | - | - | - | `check -–bin foo –profile test` | check_test† | check_test† | - | - | - | `check --bins` | check | check | - | - | - | `check --test t1` | check | check | check_test | - | - | `check --tests` | check, check_test† | check, check_test† | check_test | check†, check_test† | - | `check --all-targets` | check, check_test† | check, check_test† | check_test | check, check_test† | check_test | † = different behavior from today

vn971 · 2021-03-09T16:32:54Z

For people who find this via search, the solution to typecheck tests is cargo check --tests

bruno-medeiros changed the title ~~Add option to check test code for cargo check~~ Add option to cargo check to also check test code Dec 20, 2016

bruno-medeiros mentioned this issue Dec 20, 2016

cargo check #3296

Merged

alexcrichton added the Command-check label Dec 20, 2016

bruno-medeiros changed the title ~~Add option to cargo check to also check test code~~ Add option to cargo check to check all targets, including test code Dec 20, 2016

jonhoo mentioned this issue Feb 18, 2017

Use cargo-check in cargo maker neomake/neomake#843

Closed

fmdkdd mentioned this issue Mar 17, 2017

some benefit from "cargo check"? flycheck/flycheck-rust#51

Closed

ehuss mentioned this issue Mar 21, 2017

Can't find crate for dev-dependencies while rustc has no problems! rust-lang/rust-enhanced#171

Closed

Xanewok mentioned this issue Apr 1, 2017

Test directory not yet analysed rust-lang/rls#191

Closed

fmdkdd mentioned this issue Apr 5, 2017

Flycheck does not include dev-dependencies when running tests flycheck/flycheck-rust#55

Closed

jonhoo mentioned this issue Jun 5, 2017

Show errors in Rust test code dense-analysis/ale#626

Closed

This was referenced Jun 15, 2017

cargo check,build,rustc --all-targets #4157

Closed

Add cargo build --examples to build all examples #3112

Closed

carols10cents mentioned this issue Oct 3, 2017

cargo check doesn't check documentation code fences #4565

Closed

ehuss mentioned this issue Oct 4, 2017

Make cargo check also check unit tests #4039

Closed

ehuss mentioned this issue Oct 7, 2017

Add unit test checking to cargo check #4592

Merged

bors closed this as completed in 235712f Oct 30, 2017

alkorang mentioned this issue Nov 26, 2017

'check all' option is not working correctly AtomLinter/linter-rust#120

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add option to `cargo check` to check all targets, including test code #3431

Add option to `cargo check` to check all targets, including test code #3431

bruno-medeiros commented Dec 20, 2016

jonhoo commented Dec 20, 2016

alexcrichton commented Dec 20, 2016

bruno-medeiros commented Dec 20, 2016

alexcrichton commented Dec 21, 2016

crumblingstatue commented Feb 17, 2017 •

edited

Loading

alexcrichton commented Feb 17, 2017

jonhoo commented Mar 17, 2017

ehuss commented Mar 17, 2017

koivunej commented Mar 24, 2017

alexcrichton commented Mar 24, 2017

BenWiederhake commented Mar 24, 2017

alexcrichton commented Mar 24, 2017

koivunej commented May 8, 2017

BenWiederhake commented May 8, 2017

jonhoo commented May 15, 2017

alexcrichton commented May 15, 2017

jonhoo commented May 15, 2017

thegranddesign commented Oct 4, 2017

thegranddesign commented Oct 4, 2017

vn971 commented Mar 9, 2021

Add option to cargo check to check all targets, including test code #3431

Add option to cargo check to check all targets, including test code #3431

Comments

bruno-medeiros commented Dec 20, 2016

jonhoo commented Dec 20, 2016

alexcrichton commented Dec 20, 2016

bruno-medeiros commented Dec 20, 2016

alexcrichton commented Dec 21, 2016

crumblingstatue commented Feb 17, 2017 • edited Loading

alexcrichton commented Feb 17, 2017

jonhoo commented Mar 17, 2017

ehuss commented Mar 17, 2017

koivunej commented Mar 24, 2017

alexcrichton commented Mar 24, 2017

BenWiederhake commented Mar 24, 2017

alexcrichton commented Mar 24, 2017

koivunej commented May 8, 2017

BenWiederhake commented May 8, 2017

jonhoo commented May 15, 2017

alexcrichton commented May 15, 2017

jonhoo commented May 15, 2017

thegranddesign commented Oct 4, 2017

thegranddesign commented Oct 4, 2017

vn971 commented Mar 9, 2021

Add option to `cargo check` to check all targets, including test code #3431

Add option to `cargo check` to check all targets, including test code #3431

crumblingstatue commented Feb 17, 2017 •

edited

Loading