Trim parameter names in SwiftTestingScanner #1209
Conversation
Test specified with anonymous arguments would produce an id with extra whitespace, i.e: `funcWithArgument(_ x: Int)` would produce a TestItem id of `funcWithArgument(_ :)` This patch trims this extra whitespace to produce IDs that are consistent with Swift's function ids, i.e: `funcWithArgument(_:)`
| @@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ final class SyntacticSwiftTestingTestScanner: SyntaxVisitor { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| let name = | |||
| node.name.text + "(" + node.signature.parameterClause.parameters.map { "\($0.firstName):" }.joined() + ")" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, this is still not quite correct because of optional leading/trailing backticks. See apple/swift-syntax#1936.
swift-testing has logic to trim these off that you may need to adopt.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like the best course of action is to leverage apple/swift-syntax#2576 when its ready. @ahoppen In the short term is it worth stripping the backticks in the TestItem initializer until the proper solution is merged?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Long-term yes, short-term we'll need you to remove them manually I think. (Whether or not it's "worth it" is subjective, but swift-testing's own test suite checks for this sort of thing.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Created #1211 as a stopgap until apple/swift-syntax#2576 is ready
|
@swift-ci Please test |
|
@swift-ci Please test Windows |
Test specified with anonymous arguments would produce an id with extra whitespace, i.e:
funcWithArgument(_ x: Int)would produce a TestItem id offuncWithArgument(_ :)This patch trims this extra whitespace to produce IDs that are consistent with Swift's function ids, i.e:
funcWithArgument(_:)