Replace setTestFilter with makeTestFilter.
#153
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
`setTestFilter` is too rigid because it replaces the existing test filter and that makes composition harder than it needs to be. Let's replace it with a function that returns a test filter which can then be composed:
```swift
let idFilter = makeTestFilter(matching: myTestIDs)
func canHaveAPony(_ test: Test) -> Bool { ... }
configuration.testFilter = { test in
idFilter(test) && canHaveAPony(test)
}
```
Resolves rdar://119205417.
grynspan
requested review from
stmontgomery,
dennisweissmann,
briancroom,
SeanROlszewski and
suzannaratcliff
as code owners
|
@swift-ci please test |
stmontgomery
reviewed
Dec 5, 2023
|
|
||
| // MARK: - Test filter factory functions | ||
|
|
||
| /// Filter tests to run to those specified via a set of test IDs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we update the wording of these two factory functions? Now, they don't perform the filtering, but only generate a filter
stmontgomery
approved these changes
Dec 5, 2023
|
@swift-ci please test |
suzannaratcliff
approved these changes
Dec 5, 2023
stmontgomery
added
the
tools integration
grynspan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2023
This PR refines the previous PR for this issue, #153. It removes the internal overload of `makeTestFilter(matching:uncheckedTestFilter:)` because it is redundant: since the result needs to be passed to `uncheckedTestFilter` to preserve its lack of `isHidden`-checking, it doesn't _also_ need to impose its own check. I did add an internal overload of `makeTestFilter()` to the test target that just returns `selection.contains` as a convenience. Resolves rdar://119205417 (again.)
2 tasks
grynspan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2023
* Refine `makeTestFilter()` further. This PR refines the previous PR for this issue, #153. It removes the internal overload of `makeTestFilter(matching:uncheckedTestFilter:)` because it is redundant: since the result needs to be passed to `uncheckedTestFilter` to preserve its lack of `isHidden`-checking, it doesn't _also_ need to impose its own check. I did add an internal overload of `makeTestFilter()` to the test target that just returns `selection.contains` as a convenience. Resolves rdar://119205417 (again.)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
setTestFilteris too rigid because it replaces the existing test filter and that makes composition harder than it needs to be. Let's replace it with a function that returns a test filter which can then be composed:Resolves rdar://119205417.
Checklist: