Improve doc cfg(test) and tests directory #38823

Freyskeyd · 2017-01-04T15:23:24Z

Hi,

I was facing a problem with my code organisation. I was using a tests directory and i defined some #[cfg(test)] in my src/. But i was not able to use it in my tests folder.

.
├── Cargo.lock
├── Cargo.toml
├── src
│   ├── lib.rs
│   └── test.rs
└── tests
    └── x.rs

src/lib.rs

#[cfg(test)]
pub mod test;

#[test]
fn tesst() {
    assert!(test::t());
}

src/test.rs

pub fn t() -> bool { true }

test/x.rs

extern crate testt;

use testt::test;
#[test]
fn tesst() {
    assert!(test::t());
}

I was unable to compile using cargo test:

error[E0432]: unresolved import `testt::test`
 --> tests/x.rs:3:5
  |
3 | use testt::test;
  |     ^^^^^^^^^^^ no `test` in `testt`

If i remove the tests directory everything works fine. To use an utils module in your tests directory, you need to create a module in the directory (like tests/utils.rs). My tests/x.rs look like this now:

extern crate testt;

mod utils;

#[test]
fn tesst() {
    assert!(utils::t());
}

And my tree:

.
├── Cargo.lock
├── Cargo.toml
├── src
│   └── lib.rs
└── tests
    ├── utils.rs
    └── x.rs

I think that thing must be documented in the book.

Ping:

@badboy : Because he's the one who showed me the path
@shahn : Because he helped me too to find the solution

Signed-off-by: Freyskeyd [email protected]

rust-highfive · 2017-01-04T15:23:33Z

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @steveklabnik (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

GuillaumeGomez · 2017-01-04T15:46:12Z

I don't like very much the way you worded it. :-/ #[cfg(test)] isn't ignored, this is conditional compilation so it cannot be ignored.

Freyskeyd · 2017-01-04T15:54:40Z

@GuillaumeGomez right.

What do you think:

Note, every `#[cfg(test)]` in the `src` directory will not be compiled because...

badboy · 2017-01-04T17:15:13Z

I do not like this addition.

The section already mentions:

This is because each test in the tests directory is an entirely separate crate, and so we need to import our library.

Maybe we should just stress a bit more that this means that the main crate is not compiled in test mode?

Freyskeyd · 2017-01-04T17:46:52Z

Something like:

This is because each test in the `tests` directory is an entirely separate crate, and so we need to import our library.
Meaning that every `#[cfg (test)]` will not be compiled in the main crate.

cc @badboy

GuillaumeGomez · 2017-01-04T23:26:38Z

Hum, I'm shared on this. :-/

cc @rust-lang/docs

frewsxcv · 2017-01-09T03:57:03Z

I'm not a fan of the proposed wording for this, but I can't think of anything better to suggest right now. I'll think about this...

steveklabnik · 2017-01-23T21:36:11Z

Here's how I'd word this:

Note, when building integration tests, your library is compiled without cfg(test), since it's an external test, and so is testing your library as consumers of that library would use it.

WDTY @rust-lang/docs ?

GuillaumeGomez · 2017-01-23T21:39:30Z

@steveklabnik: I don't like your wording either. Too confusing.

steveklabnik · 2017-01-23T22:43:03Z

Could you elaborate on what specifically is confusing?

GuillaumeGomez · 2017-01-23T22:48:21Z

Sure!

your library is compiled without cfg(test)

I think a better wording would be:

since the test flag isn't passed to the compiler, all parts in cfg(test) won't be included in the build

steveklabnik · 2017-01-23T22:51:07Z

I like that too. @Freyskeyd what do you think?

Freyskeyd · 2017-01-23T23:04:20Z

That's nice, what do you think of:

Note, when a tests folder exists, cargo will not pass the testflag to the compiler, all parts in cfg(test) won't be included in the build.

frewsxcv · 2017-01-24T03:05:17Z

Note, when a tests folder exists, cargo will not pass the testflag to the compiler, all parts in cfg(test) won't be included in the build.

@Freyskeyd The underlying issue here is not that a certain directory exists, but that when running integration tests, the library crate being tested will not be compiled with cfg(test), which some users might be confused by.

Regarding @steveklabnik's suggestion:

Note, when building integration tests, your library is compiled without cfg(test)...
I like this part.

I like this part.

...since it's an external test, and so is testing your library as consumers of that library would use it.

I like the direction of this: indicating the library is being built in the same manner as a consumer might build it, but I'm not much a fan of the wording. I've read it through a dozen times and still don't really get it. I might be too sleepy right now though 😴 .

This is clearer to me, albeit maybe a bit wordy:

Note, when building integration tests, your library is compiled without cfg(test). Building your library without the test attribute better emulates how a consumer of your library might build it.

GuillaumeGomez · 2017-01-24T12:34:06Z

@frewsxcv: your sentence has the same issue:

your library is compiled without cfg(test)

This is how it works, but it'd be great to include why, like I did when I proposed a modified version of what @steveklabnik suggested.

Freyskeyd · 2017-01-24T14:35:46Z

@GuillaumeGomez what do you think:

Note, when building integration tests, cargo will not pass the test flag to the compiler. It means that all parts in cfg(test) won't be included in the build used in your integration tests.

GuillaumeGomez · 2017-01-24T15:18:07Z

@Freyskeyd: Great! 👍

frewsxcv · 2017-01-24T16:18:13Z

src/doc/book/testing.md

@@ -499,6 +499,10 @@ be imported in every test with `mod common;`
 That's all there is to the `tests` directory. The `tests` module isn't needed
 here, since the whole thing is focused on tests.

+Note, when building integration tests, cargo will not pass the test flag to the
+compiler. It means that all parts in cfg(test) won't be included in the build


Nit:

`cfg(test)`

frewsxcv · 2017-01-24T16:18:52Z

src/doc/book/testing.md

@@ -499,6 +499,10 @@ be imported in every test with `mod common;`
 That's all there is to the `tests` directory. The `tests` module isn't needed
 here, since the whole thing is focused on tests.

+Note, when building integration tests, cargo will not pass the test flag to the


Nit:

cargo will not pass the `test` attribute

https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/testing.html#the-test-attribute

@frewsxcv you want me to add a link to this page or add single quote around test?

Adding the grave accents and calling it an "attribute" instead of a "flag", since TRPL calls it an "attribute".

The reference also calls them "attributes":

https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference.html#function-only-attributes

yes, but in conditional-compilation it's a flag:

test - Enabled when compiling the test harness (using the --test flag).

That's referring to --test, which is a command line argument, also called a "flag"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command-line_interface#Command-line_option

Signed-off-by: Freyskeyd <[email protected]>

Freyskeyd · 2017-01-30T09:50:26Z

@steveklabnik What do you think ? :)

steveklabnik · 2017-01-30T19:37:49Z

Looks fine to me, let's

@bors: r+ rollup

bors · 2017-01-30T19:37:50Z

📌 Commit b996a7e has been approved by steveklabnik

@badboy

…Test, r=steveklabnik Improve doc cfg(test) and tests directory Hi, I was facing a problem with my code organisation. I was using a tests directory and i defined some `#[cfg(test)]` in my `src/`. But i was not able to use it in my `tests` folder. ```bash . ├── Cargo.lock ├── Cargo.toml ├── src │ ├── lib.rs │ └── test.rs └── tests └── x.rs ``` > src/lib.rs ```rust pub mod test; fn tesst() { assert!(test::t()); } ``` > src/test.rs ```rust pub fn t() -> bool { true } ``` > test/x.rs ```rust extern crate testt; use testt::test; fn tesst() { assert!(test::t()); } ``` I was unable to compile using `cargo test`: ```bash error[E0432]: unresolved import `testt::test` --> tests/x.rs:3:5 | 3 | use testt::test; | ^^^^^^^^^^^ no `test` in `testt` ``` If i remove the `tests` directory everything works fine. To use an utils module in your `tests` directory, you need to create a module in the directory (like `tests/utils.rs`). My `tests/x.rs` look like this now: ```rust extern crate testt; mod utils; fn tesst() { assert!(utils::t()); } ``` And my tree: ```bash . ├── Cargo.lock ├── Cargo.toml ├── src │ └── lib.rs └── tests ├── utils.rs └── x.rs ``` I think that thing must be documented in the book. Ping: - @badboy : Because he's the one who showed me the path - @shahn : Because he helped me too to find the solution Signed-off-by: Freyskeyd <[email protected]>

Rollup of 9 pull requests - Successful merges: #38823, #39196, #39299, #39319, #39373, #39383, #39416, #39420, #39427 - Failed merges:

rust-highfive assigned steveklabnik Jan 4, 2017

alexcrichton added the T-tools label Jan 19, 2017

Freyskeyd force-pushed the doc-missingInformationCfgTest branch 2 times, most recently from be64366 to eeae310 Compare January 24, 2017 15:23

frewsxcv reviewed Jan 24, 2017

View reviewed changes

Fix doc cfg(test) and tests directory

b996a7e

Signed-off-by: Freyskeyd <[email protected]>

Freyskeyd force-pushed the doc-missingInformationCfgTest branch from eeae310 to b996a7e Compare January 24, 2017 20:04

GuillaumeGomez mentioned this pull request Feb 2, 2017

Rollup of 9 pull requests #39470

Merged

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 2, 2017

Auto merge of #39470 - GuillaumeGomez:rollup, r=GuillaumeGomez

eedaa94

Rollup of 9 pull requests - Successful merges: #38823, #39196, #39299, #39319, #39373, #39383, #39416, #39420, #39427 - Failed merges:

bors merged commit b996a7e into rust-lang:master Feb 3, 2017

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Improve doc cfg(test) and tests directory #38823

Improve doc cfg(test) and tests directory #38823

Freyskeyd commented Jan 4, 2017

rust-highfive commented Jan 4, 2017

GuillaumeGomez commented Jan 4, 2017

Freyskeyd commented Jan 4, 2017

badboy commented Jan 4, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Freyskeyd commented Jan 4, 2017

GuillaumeGomez commented Jan 4, 2017

frewsxcv commented Jan 9, 2017 •

edited

Loading

steveklabnik commented Jan 23, 2017 •

edited

Loading

GuillaumeGomez commented Jan 23, 2017

steveklabnik commented Jan 23, 2017

GuillaumeGomez commented Jan 23, 2017

steveklabnik commented Jan 23, 2017

Freyskeyd commented Jan 23, 2017

frewsxcv commented Jan 24, 2017

GuillaumeGomez commented Jan 24, 2017

Freyskeyd commented Jan 24, 2017

GuillaumeGomez commented Jan 24, 2017

frewsxcv Jan 24, 2017

frewsxcv Jan 24, 2017

Freyskeyd Jan 24, 2017

frewsxcv Jan 24, 2017

frewsxcv Jan 24, 2017

Freyskeyd Jan 24, 2017

frewsxcv Jan 24, 2017

Freyskeyd commented Jan 30, 2017 •

edited

Loading

steveklabnik commented Jan 30, 2017

bors commented Jan 30, 2017

Improve doc cfg(test) and tests directory #38823

Improve doc cfg(test) and tests directory #38823

Conversation

Freyskeyd commented Jan 4, 2017

rust-highfive commented Jan 4, 2017

GuillaumeGomez commented Jan 4, 2017

Freyskeyd commented Jan 4, 2017

badboy commented Jan 4, 2017 • edited Loading

Freyskeyd commented Jan 4, 2017

GuillaumeGomez commented Jan 4, 2017

frewsxcv commented Jan 9, 2017 • edited Loading

steveklabnik commented Jan 23, 2017 • edited Loading

GuillaumeGomez commented Jan 23, 2017

steveklabnik commented Jan 23, 2017

GuillaumeGomez commented Jan 23, 2017

steveklabnik commented Jan 23, 2017

Freyskeyd commented Jan 23, 2017

frewsxcv commented Jan 24, 2017

GuillaumeGomez commented Jan 24, 2017

Freyskeyd commented Jan 24, 2017

GuillaumeGomez commented Jan 24, 2017

frewsxcv Jan 24, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

frewsxcv Jan 24, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Freyskeyd Jan 24, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

frewsxcv Jan 24, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

frewsxcv Jan 24, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Freyskeyd Jan 24, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

frewsxcv Jan 24, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Freyskeyd commented Jan 30, 2017 • edited Loading

steveklabnik commented Jan 30, 2017

bors commented Jan 30, 2017

badboy commented Jan 4, 2017 •

edited

Loading

frewsxcv commented Jan 9, 2017 •

edited

Loading

steveklabnik commented Jan 23, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Freyskeyd commented Jan 30, 2017 •

edited

Loading