You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'd like to propose the introduction of a "not contains" (!~) operator in vstest.console TestCaseFilter.
For vstest.console, we currently have the following operations:
equals (=)
not equals (!=)
contains (~)
This is bad because it allows you to negate equality but not the contains, it is not orthogonal.
Supporting "not contains" would allow some business cases that are completely impossible today, like:
Run all tests that are not in namespace X
I needed this behavior recently but it is completely impossible to represent it using the current operators. I'll be forced to split the tests in 2 different projects or call vstest.console twice to make it work, and this seems unnecessary to me.
I feel like a generic "not" operator (!) that could negate any expression would be more flexible, but that is a bit more work and would probably also impact the != functionality. This is why I'm limiting my suggestion to a less flexible, "hardcoded" not contains !~.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'd like to propose the introduction of a "not contains" (!~) operator in vstest.console
TestCaseFilter
.For vstest.console, we currently have the following operations:
This is bad because it allows you to negate equality but not the contains, it is not orthogonal.
Supporting "not contains" would allow some business cases that are completely impossible today, like:
I needed this behavior recently but it is completely impossible to represent it using the current operators. I'll be forced to split the tests in 2 different projects or call vstest.console twice to make it work, and this seems unnecessary to me.
I feel like a generic "not" operator (!) that could negate any expression would be more flexible, but that is a bit more work and would probably also impact the != functionality. This is why I'm limiting my suggestion to a less flexible, "hardcoded" not contains !~.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: