add only-failures mode #4886

lstkz · 2017-11-13T20:50:10Z

Requested in #3634.
Solution:
When pressing f it re-runs only failed tests. Newly added tests are ignored.
See demo http://take.ms/g4Oyt

There are flow issues and I will fix it later. Let me know your feedback.

SimenB · 2017-11-14T13:46:01Z

This is failing CI

SimenB · 2017-11-14T13:47:42Z

Can this be plugged in with the new approach introduced in #4841? /cc @wbinnssmith

lstkz · 2017-11-14T14:10:45Z

In the current form, the plugin system doesn't allow it.
https://github.com/facebook/jest/pull/4886/files#diff-e4399d1682ddb42f8a43f1a917d42d87
This must be overridden in some way.

codecov-io · 2017-11-14T15:29:38Z

Codecov Report

Merging #4886 into master will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 55.88%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4886      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   60.74%   60.72%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         198      200       +2     
  Lines        6605     6638      +33     
  Branches        4        4              
==========================================
+ Hits         4012     4031      +19     
- Misses       2593     2607      +14

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/jest-config/src/index.js	`23.8% <ø> (ø)`	⬆️
packages/jest-cli/src/constants.js	`100% <ø> (ø)`	⬆️
packages/jest-jasmine2/src/index.js	`5.63% <0%> (-0.34%)`	⬇️
packages/jest-cli/src/get_no_test_found_failed.js	`0% <0%> (ø)`
packages/jest-cli/src/run_jest.js	`50.87% <33.33%> (-0.98%)`	⬇️
packages/jest-cli/src/watch.js	`74.82% <40%> (-1.3%)`	⬇️
packages/jest-cli/src/get_no_test_found_message.js	`60% <50%> (-6.67%)`	⬇️
packages/jest-cli/src/lib/update_global_config.js	`87.5% <50%> (-3.41%)`	⬇️
packages/jest-cli/src/failed_tests_cache.js	`87.5% <87.5%> (ø)`
... and 1 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 39bfa34...ff08093. Read the comment docs.

SimenB · 2017-11-23T07:41:35Z

@wbinnssmith Thoughts on the comment above about this feature not being possible to implement with the pluggable watch mode?

rogeliog · 2017-11-27T19:24:04Z

packages/jest-cli/src/__tests__/__snapshots__/watch.test.js.snap

@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ Array [
  "
 Watch Usage
 › Press a to run all tests.
+ › Press f to enable \\"only-failures\\" mode.


Should we phrase it in a way that is more similar to "to run only failed tests" so that we don't expose the "only-failures" keyword?

rogeliog · 2017-11-27T19:25:50Z

packages/jest-cli/src/lib/update_global_config.js

@@ -60,5 +61,9 @@ export default (globalConfig: GlobalConfig, options: Options): GlobalConfig => {
    newConfig.passWithNoTests = true;
  }

+  if ('onlyFailures' in options) {
+    newConfig.onlyFailures = options.onlyFailures || false;


Do we need to cast onlyFailures to boolean?

I did that because of Flow warning.

rogeliog · 2017-11-27T19:29:32Z

packages/jest-cli/src/watch.js

@@ -224,6 +229,12 @@ export default function watch(
        });
        startRun(globalConfig);
        break;
+      case KEYS.F:


Should pressing C also clear this filter?

rogeliog · 2017-11-27T19:30:29Z

packages/jest-jasmine2/src/index.js

@@ -130,7 +130,14 @@ async function jasmine2(
      },
    });

-  if (globalConfig.testNamePattern) {
+  if (globalConfig.enabledTestsMap) {


How would this work with jest-circus? cc: @aaronabramov @cpojer

rogeliog · 2017-11-27T19:33:14Z

packages/jest-cli/src/failed_tests_cache.js

+      return globalConfig;
+    }
+    // $FlowFixMe Object.assign
+    const newConfig: GlobalConfig = Object.assign({}, globalConfig);


I think this should be done through import updateGlobalConfig from './lib/update_global_config';

rogeliog · 2017-11-27T19:34:12Z

It would be really nice if we make plugins robust enough to support this as an independent plugin 😄

SimenB · 2017-12-06T14:22:55Z

@lsentkiewicz thoughts on the feedback? This also needs a rebase

lstkz · 2017-12-06T20:49:02Z

@SimenB
Sorry for the delay, I will do it in 1-2 days.

Signed-off-by: Łukasz Sentkiewicz <sirmims@gmail.com> lint fixes Signed-off-by: Łukasz Sentkiewicz <sirmims@gmail.com> fix tests Signed-off-by: Łukasz Sentkiewicz <sirmims@gmail.com> fix tests Signed-off-by: Łukasz Sentkiewicz <sirmims@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: Łukasz Sentkiewicz <sirmims@gmail.com>

cpojer · 2017-12-15T11:03:24Z

Let's do it for Jest 22. @lsentkiewicz thanks so much for sending this PR and thanks to all the reviewers for getting this into a good shape. I still have concerns that this will make people unaware of tests that start failing while in this mode that won't be captured by this, and that may be confusing for people. I'm fine with this because I think it still speeds up the process of fixing a bunch of tests even if you have to run all tests once at the end and fix up other stuff.

apaatsio · 2018-01-15T13:46:15Z

I still have concerns that this will make people unaware of tests that start failing while in this mode that won't be captured by this, and that may be confusing for people.

I share the same concern. I see how this can make fixing some bugs faster but I'm unsure if the benefit outweighs the risk of some failing tests going unnoticed.

This mode can also increase the user's cognitive load. Since it re-tests only the originally failing tests, the user has to remember which tests were failing to know what was actually tested.

After the tests pass it shows a text "No failed test found.". This can be misleading since there might actually be other failing tests. It would be more clear if after the tests have been fixed it would show the list of all the originally failing tests with a "PASS" label next to them.

github-actions · 2021-05-12T23:07:09Z

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.
Please note this issue tracker is not a help forum. We recommend using StackOverflow or our discord channel for questions.

facebook-github-bot added the CLA Signed ✔️ label Nov 13, 2017

lstkz mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2017

Re-run only failing tests #3634

Closed

SimenB requested a review from rogeliog November 14, 2017 13:46

rogeliog reviewed Nov 27, 2017

View reviewed changes

lstkz added 2 commits December 12, 2017 10:10

add only-failures mode

0c98bcf

Signed-off-by: Łukasz Sentkiewicz <sirmims@gmail.com> lint fixes Signed-off-by: Łukasz Sentkiewicz <sirmims@gmail.com> fix tests Signed-off-by: Łukasz Sentkiewicz <sirmims@gmail.com> fix tests Signed-off-by: Łukasz Sentkiewicz <sirmims@gmail.com>

replace 'only-failures' message

ff08093

Signed-off-by: Łukasz Sentkiewicz <sirmims@gmail.com>

SimenB approved these changes Dec 14, 2017

View reviewed changes

cpojer merged commit 6f7c85a into jestjs:master Dec 15, 2017

SimenB mentioned this pull request Dec 27, 2017

Hide console logging for passing tests and show it for failures #4156

Closed

avalanche1 mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2018

Re-run failing suites in 'focus only on tests that previously failed' mode #5716

Closed

github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 12, 2021

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

add only-failures mode #4886

add only-failures mode #4886

lstkz commented Nov 13, 2017

SimenB commented Nov 14, 2017

SimenB commented Nov 14, 2017

lstkz commented Nov 14, 2017

codecov-io commented Nov 14, 2017 •

edited

SimenB commented Nov 23, 2017

rogeliog Nov 27, 2017

rogeliog Nov 27, 2017

lstkz Dec 6, 2017

rogeliog Nov 27, 2017

rogeliog Nov 27, 2017

rogeliog Nov 27, 2017

rogeliog commented Nov 27, 2017

SimenB commented Dec 6, 2017

lstkz commented Dec 6, 2017

cpojer commented Dec 15, 2017

apaatsio commented Jan 15, 2018

github-actions bot commented May 12, 2021

add only-failures mode #4886

add only-failures mode #4886

Conversation

lstkz commented Nov 13, 2017

SimenB commented Nov 14, 2017

SimenB commented Nov 14, 2017

lstkz commented Nov 14, 2017

codecov-io commented Nov 14, 2017 • edited

Codecov Report

SimenB commented Nov 23, 2017

rogeliog Nov 27, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rogeliog Nov 27, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lstkz Dec 6, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rogeliog Nov 27, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rogeliog Nov 27, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rogeliog Nov 27, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rogeliog commented Nov 27, 2017

SimenB commented Dec 6, 2017

lstkz commented Dec 6, 2017

cpojer commented Dec 15, 2017

apaatsio commented Jan 15, 2018

github-actions bot commented May 12, 2021

codecov-io commented Nov 14, 2017 •

edited