Test fixes

[TornaxO7]

Adjusted all tests so all are passing now.

Question

While I was refactoring the tests, I encountered often pretty duplicated code like in the doc example of config/model.rs for the new_with_envelope method... I was thinking to create a new trait, which is only active during tests which you can use to create instances of a struct with real-case values, which makes it different compared to the Default trait.

In summary:
The Test trait should make it possible, to create new instances of a struct with near real-case attributes for testing while the Default trait can include "empty" attributes (like an empty vector or None and so on). What do you think?

[TornaxO7]

@soywod review pls

[TornaxO7]

@soywod could you also please answer my suggestion with the Test trait?

[soywod]

Mmh I'm not so fan of having testing code outside of tests modules. It's not sth I've seen in other libs. I think we should not mix up codes. A dedicated function or a macro inside tests modules sounds more straightforward to me (and a better solution).

[TornaxO7]

Mmh I'm not so fan of having testing code outside of tests modules.

Hold on, you're missunderstanding something.
I meant something like this:
lib.rs:

#[cfg(tests)]
pub trait Test {
    fn get_test() -> Self;
}

and then you can do the following for example for msg/model/msg.rs:

#[cfg(tests)]
impl Test for Msg {
    fn test() -> Self {
       // normal stuff
    }
}```

    }

[soywod]

What are the benefits of such a trait? I mean, we could just write tests directly inside the test module, why bothering with implementing a trait? Sorry if I don't understand well what you mean.

[TornaxO7]

Because I think that it would safe us some duplicated code. Let's say you need a Msg struct for a test in the imap-connection directory and another instance in the body.rs file. You'd create in both places [a similiar]/[an equal] function for both test modules (I think) or do you have a better idea? Because I'd like to avoid cases like here but that's probably my fault.

[soywod]

The Msg should be tested once at one particular place, we should not need to have multiple instances of Msg. Now, if you really see the use case then do, I'm following you!

[TornaxO7]

No wait, I don't want to force you!!! I just saw that you also used an account in the test for imap (it says that you don't use it) so I thought that it might suit if we include this trait.

[soywod]

No no you don't force me, I don't see the need but your are the one refactoring so you should know better, I really trust you! If you think it is needed then you can go, really 😃

[TornaxO7]

hm... ok, I'll think about it how to fix this...