Add missing assertion params to withCode

[matthewjones372]

Adds additional RenderParams to the with code method for rendering test assertions. Forward ported what was needed from the Render trait in the zio 1 branch.
Closes #7602

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[regiskuckaertz]

@swoogles hello 👋 this is my colleague doing his first ZIO pr 🕺 We found the PrettyPrint function that was quite handy and thought it would be better to reuse that rather than forward port the Render machinery.

[matthewjones372]

Before continuing, I'm not sure if this is the right path. Would be interested in hearing some feedback! thanks

[adamgfraser]

@matthewjones372 I think it is fine to use withCode here. My main concern is that the proposed type signature of withCode is very weakly typed:

def withCode(code: String, params: Any*): TestArrow[A, B] =
  ???

It seems like the contract is that each element of params will be rendered as a String and then they will be rendered as code($param1, $param2, ...). One thing that might make this more clear is just accepting a variable arguments list of String, though maybe you were trying to avoid the need to call toString every time you call withCode. The other thing we're not able to express here is any assertions that have a more complex pattern of rendering, for example curried arguments. That is a little bit of what that Render data type did before.

So I think you could use withCode but it might be helpful if it accepted a more structured representation of the argument and its parameters that was an algebraic data type that could then get rendered as a String.

[swoogles]

@adamgfraser So are you envisioning something like:

def withCode(code: String, render: Assertion.Render): TestArrow[A, B] = ???

?

[adamgfraser]

Or even:

def withCode(render: Assertion.Render): TestArrow[A, B] = ???

May not be able to do that for compatibility so it could be:

def withCode(code: String, arguments: Arguments): TestArrow[A, B] = ???

[regiskuckaertz]

Looks like this is almost there, what do you think @adamgfraser ?

[regiskuckaertz]

Looks like there are some flaky tests, but this one I believe is a result of this PR, but the expectation should be amended to reflect the new ouput IMO:

"""##teamcity[testStarted name='labeled failures' locationHint='file:///home/runner/work/zio/zio/test-tests/shared/src/test/scala/zio/test/IntellijRendererSpec.scala:36' captureStandardOutput='true']
      ##teamcity[testFailed name='labeled failures' message='Assertion failed:' details='  ✗ 0 was not equal to 1
        third
        c did not satisfy isSome(equalTo(1)).label(\"third\")
        isSome(equalTo(1)) = 0
        c = Some(0)
        at /home/runner/work/zio/zio/test-tests/shared/src/test/scala/zio/test/IntellijRendererSpec.scala:36 
      ']
      """ did not contain """##teamcity[testFailed name='labeled failures' message='Assertion failed:' details='  ✗ 0 was not equal to 1
        third
        c did not satisfy isSome(equalTo(1)).label(\"third\")
        isSome = 0
        c = Some(0)
        at /home/runner/work/zio/zio/test-tests/shared/src/test/scala/zio/test/IntellijRendererSpec.scala:36 
      ']
      """

[adamgfraser]

@matthewjones372 Thank you for your work on this and congratulations on your first contribution to ZIO!

[matthewjones372]

@matthewjones372 Thank you for your work on this and congratulations on your first contribution to ZIO!

thanks!