Add checks for test functions marked with @Test attribute in relevant Rules #767
Conversation
In the test code validation added checks to consider new Swift Testing syntax as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
P.S. I am planning to add check for new testing framework for NeverForceUnwrap, NeverUseForceTry and NeverUseImplicitlyUnwrappedOptionals rules as well.
Would you be willing to do that in this PR? I don't think it would make it too big to review and it would be nice to have a single PR that adds both new swift-testing-related features.
hamtiko
changed the title
|
@allevato I have added the Swift Testing checks for |
| let attributeName = attribute.as(AttributeSyntax.self)?.attributeName | ||
| return attributeName?.as(IdentifierTypeSyntax.self)?.name.text == name | ||
| // support @Module.Attribute syntax as well | ||
| || attributeName?.as(MemberTypeSyntax.self)?.name.text == name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since you're not checking the module name here, this would match anything, right? Like @Foo.Test, for example.
It might be better to make the function signature hasAttribute(_ name: String, inModule: String) and have the caller always provide it, but it would only be checked if it was a MemberTypeSyntax. So hasAttribute("Test", inModule: "Testing") would still match either @Test or @Testing.Test, but not @Foo.Test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What you think if we will have 2 functions, one will be the current one and another function like you suggested?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's better for simplicity to have one function that does both checks. We can't definitively know if @Test refers to @Testing.Test without the file being type-checked, which we can't do in swift-format. So we're making an assumption that @Test by itself refers to the one in Testing and nothing else, because of how common we expect that pattern to be. If we're handling that as the common case, then there's no reason to not also handle @Testing.Test with the same query—each of the individual rules shouldn't have to make two calls to find the attribute it's looking for.
| // support @Module.Attribute syntax as well | ||
| || attributeName?.as(MemberTypeSyntax.self)?.name.text == name | ||
| } | ||
| /// Indicates whether the node has attribute with the given `name`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you mention in the doc comment that the module name is only considered if present if the attribute is written as @Module.Name, and that that's intentional? Otherwise it might look like a bug to someone reading it in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good point, done. 👍
This pull request updates the
AlwaysUseLowerCamelCaserule in the swift-format project to support the new Swift Testing framework.Previously, the rule allowed underscores in test function names based on the old
XCTestframework criteria. I’ve added a check to also allow underscores for functions marked with the@Testattribute.P.S. I am planning to add check for new testing framework for
NeverForceUnwrap,NeverUseForceTryandNeverUseImplicitlyUnwrappedOptionalsrules as well.