Boulder: Rewrite table-driven tests as 1.7 subtests
rolandshoemaker
All 5 comments
Does this gain us enough benefit to be worth the time spent rewriting?
jsha
on 2 Dec 2016
Yup, in quite a few of the existing tests we don't provide any context about which of the tests in a table actually failed which means you have to add debug statements or eyeball it. This provides context in the error messages for which specific subtest failed which makes debugging much simpler.
rolandshoemaker
on 2 Dec 2016
Yup, in quite a few of the existing tests we don't provide any context about which of the tests in a table actually failed which means you have to add debug statements or eyeball it.
This is an annoying thing I've definitely encountered. I'd be supportive of converting tests over as we're touching code near them or writing new tests.
cpu
on 3 Dec 2016
@cpu should we close this issue?
klebervirgilio
on 16 Feb 2018
@klebervirgilio This one can't be closed yet. Here's one example of a test that could be rewritten to use subtests. I think there are lots of others :-(
cpu
on 16 Feb 2018
Related issues
jmhodges
路
6Comments
Darkspirit
路
5Comments
jschleus
路
4Comments
cpu
路
4Comments
bmw
路
3Comments
Most helpful comment
Yup, in quite a few of the existing tests we don't provide any context about which of the tests in a table actually failed which means you have to add debug statements or eyeball it. This provides context in the error messages for which specific subtest failed which makes debugging much simpler.