Rename ExitTestArtifacts and split ExitCondition in twain.
#975
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This PR renames `ExitTestArtifacts` to `ExitTest.Result` and splits
`ExitCondition` into two types: `ExitTest.Condition` which can be passed to
`#expect(exitsWith:)` and `StatusAtExit` which represents the raw, possibly
platform-specific status reported by the kernel when a child process terminates.
The latter type is not nested in `ExitTest` because it can be used independently
of exit tests and we may want to use it in the future for things like
multi-process parallelization, but if a platform supports spawning processes but
not exit tests, nesting it in `ExitTest` would make it unavailable.
I considered several names for `StatusAtExit`:
- `ExitStatus`: too easily confusable with exit _codes_ such as `EXIT_SUCCESS`;
- `ProcessStatus`: we don't say "process" in our API surface elsewhere;
- `Status`: too generic
- `ExitReason`: "status" is a more widely-used term of art for this concept.
Foundation uses `terminationStatus` to represent the raw integer value and
`Process.TerminationReason` to represent whether it's an exit code or signal. We
don't use "termination" in Swift Testing's API anywhere.
I settled on `StatusAtExit` because it was distinct and makes it clear that it
represents the status of a process _at exit time_ (as opposed to while running,
e.g. `enum ProcessStatus { case running; case suspended; case terminated }`.
Updates to the exit tests proposal document will follow in a separate PR.
grynspan
added
enhancement
grynspan
requested review from
stmontgomery,
briancroom,
SeanROlszewski and
suzannaratcliff
as code owners
|
@swift-ci test |
|
@swift-ci test |
| ExitTests/SpawnProcess.swift | ||
| ExitTests/StatusAtExit.swift |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You mentioned in the PR description this type may be used independently of exit tests, so I'm wondering if the file ought to be placed in a different directory to emphasize that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It can move, but the code is already in this directory so for now I was planning to leave it there. Do you feel strongly?
|
@swift-ci test |
stmontgomery
approved these changes
Feb 28, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR renames
ExitTestArtifactstoExitTest.Resultand splitsExitConditioninto two types:ExitTest.Conditionwhich can be passed to#expect(exitsWith:)andStatusAtExitwhich represents the raw, possibly platform-specific status reported by the kernel when a child process terminates.The latter type is not nested in
ExitTestbecause it can be used independently of exit tests and we may want to use it in the future for things like multi-process parallelization, but if a platform supports spawning processes but not exit tests, nesting it inExitTestwould make it unavailable.I considered several names for
StatusAtExit:ExitStatus: too easily confusable with exit codes such asEXIT_SUCCESS;ProcessStatus: we don't say "process" in our API surface elsewhere;Status: too genericExitReason: "status" is a more widely-used term of art for this concept.Foundation uses
terminationStatusto represent the raw integer value andProcess.TerminationReasonto represent whether it's an exit code or signal. We don't use "termination" in Swift Testing's API anywhere.I settled on
StatusAtExitbecause it was distinct and makes it clear that it represents the status of a process at exit time (as opposed to while running, e.g.enum ProcessStatus { case running; case suspended; case terminated }.Updates to the exit tests proposal document will follow in a separate PR.
Checklist: