Show test type during prints

[ABouttefeux]

Test output can sometimes be confusing. For example doctest with the no_run argument are displayed the same way than test that are run.

During #83857 I got the feedback that test output can be confusing.

For the moment test output is

test $DIR/test-type.rs - f (line 12) ... ignored
test $DIR/test-type.rs - f (line 15) ... ok
test $DIR/test-type.rs - f (line 21) ... ok
test $DIR/test-type.rs - f (line 6) ... ok

I propose to change output by indicating the test type as

test $DIR/test-type.rs - f (line 12) ... ignored
test $DIR/test-type.rs - f (line 15) - compile ... ok
test $DIR/test-type.rs - f (line 21) - compile fail ... ok
test $DIR/test-type.rs - f (line 6) ... ok

by indicating the test type after the test name (and in the case of doctest after the function name and line) and before the "...".

---

Note: this is a proof of concept, the implementation is probably not optimal as the properties added in TestDesc are only use in the display and does not represent actual change of behavior, maybe TestType::DocTest could have fields

[rust-highfive]

r? @kennytm

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[m-ou-se]

I like this change. But for regular #[test]s the output looks a bit messy, since there's nothing that visually separates the test name from the test type:

running 4 tests
test hello ignore ... ignored
test hey should panic ... ok
test hi run ... ok
test hi2 run ... ok

Maybe it should be in parenthesis? Or preceded by - or : ?

(E.g.

running 4 tests
test hello - ignore ... ignored
test hey - should panic ... ok
test hi - run ... ok
test hi2 - run ... ok

)

What do you think?

[bjorn3]

test $DIR/test-type.rs - f (line 12) ignore ... ignored
test $DIR/test-type.rs - f (line 15) compile ... ok
test $DIR/test-type.rs - f (line 21) compile fail ... ok
test $DIR/test-type.rs - f (line 6) run ... ok

I think ignore and run should be omitted as they are redundant cq the most common type.

[ABouttefeux]

Concerning the failing CI, I am not sure where it came from. Correct me if I am wrong but I think the problem is that it tries to build the library at stage 0 (so with the beta compiler) but it does not have the change of the #[test] macro so fail to build test function.
Is there anything I can do ?

[m-ou-se]

Concerning the failing CI, I am not sure where it came from. Correct me if I am wrong but I think the problem is that it tries to build the library at stage 0 (so with the beta compiler) but it does not have the change of the #[test] macro so fail to build test function.
Is there anything I can do ?

Indeed. Everything library/std, library/test, etc. are all used with both the beta compiler and the newly built compiler. So the beta compiler will expand #[test] to something that does not include the new fields, while using the test crate that already has those.

You can use cfg(bootstrap) to enable/disable code in this first stage. So you could apply #[cfg(not(bootstrap)] to the new compile_fail and no_run fields. (Those cfgs will be removed when upgrading the stage 0 compiler.) Alternatively, you could try to implement this feature in such a way that the code that #[test] currently expands to in beta still works, but that's probably more work.

[ABouttefeux]

I remove the redundant print for run and ignore. Let me know if I need to change something else 😄.

[rfcbot]

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

[pickfire]

I would prefer to keep it short. Just wondering what happens if the test name is too long and overflow an 80 characters terminal? Wouldn't that be ugly? Or is there some truncation mechanism?

[ABouttefeux]

I would prefer to keep it short. Just wondering what happens if the test name is too long and overflow an 80 characters terminal? Wouldn't that be ugly? Or is there some truncation mechanism?

I don't think there is a truncation mechanism.

[pickfire]

I think once this issue is merged we need to add a truncation mechanism, because with the addition of - compile fail, there are too many characters and now the smaller terminal will have a worse experience, maybe we have truncation mechanism to disable this part first.

[rfcbot]

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed.

The RFC will be merged soon.

[m-ou-se]

Thanks again!

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 6de13c3 has been approved by m-ou-se

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 6de13c3 with merge 3740ba2...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: m-ou-se
Pushing 3740ba2 to master...