Page MenuHomePhabricator

Allow additional options in .arcunit files
AbandonedPublic

Authored by iana on Dec 2 2017, 10:26 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F11048446: D18815.id.diff
Fri, Aug 19, 4:41 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Aug 16, 6:47 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Aug 16, 4:24 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Aug 11, 2:28 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Aug 4, 12:47 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Jul 22, 4:03 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jul 17 2022, 1:56 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jul 14 2022, 10:15 PM
Subscribers

Details

Reviewers
None
Summary

(Again, apologies if this isn't the appropriate channel to suggest Arcanist enhancements like this.)

I'm trying to make a unit test engine and give it additional options via my .arcunit file, but there isn't currently a way to do that.
Add getEngineConfigurationOptions/setEngineConfigurationValue to ArcanistUnitTestEngine, shamelessly copied from ArcanistLinter, and call those functions from ArcanistConfigurationDrivenUnitTestEngine (you guessed it, shamelessly copied from ArcanistConfigurationDrivenLintEngine).

Test Plan

Verified that after this change, the standard phutil unit test engine still works, and also that I can give custom configuration options to my custom unit test engine.

Diff Detail

Repository
rARC Arcanist
Branch
experimental
Lint
Lint Passed
Unit
Tests Passed
Build Status
Buildable 18919
Build 25510: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

iana requested review of this revision.Dec 2 2017, 10:26 AM

Missed updating one of the exception strings.

Please use the Discourse forum to suggest enhancements: https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/

See this document for discussion of why you should not send patches without discussing changes first: https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabcontrib/article/contributing_code/

See this document for discussion of what we're looking for in a feature request (particularly, a complete description of the root problem you're looking to solve, which this change does not have): https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabcontrib/article/feature_requests/

To set expectations, it is basically impossible to get traction on feature requests nowadays unless you're a paying customer, and it is overwhelmingly likely that suggestions will be ignored without action. See T12134 and T12681 for discussion. Particularly, see T12134#212579 for some data about the negative value of this channel when barriers to entry were lower.

Please use the Discourse forum to suggest enhancements: https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/

OK, wrote https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/unit-test-engines-cannot-receive-configuration-the-way-linters-can/826

See this document for discussion of why you should not send patches without discussing changes first: https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabcontrib/article/contributing_code/

I did read that. To be honest I thought this was such a trivial patch, and such an obvious extension of .arcunit to bring it to parity with .arclint that I thought it would be fine.

See this document for discussion of what we're looking for in a feature request (particularly, a complete description of the root problem you're looking to solve, which this change does not have): https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabcontrib/article/feature_requests/

Fair. Attempted to completely describe the root problem on the Discourse forum.

To set expectations, it is basically impossible to get traction on feature requests nowadays unless you're a paying customer, and it is overwhelmingly likely that suggestions will be ignored without action. See T12134 and T12681 for discussion. Particularly, see T12134#212579 for some data about the negative value of this channel when barriers to entry were lower.

Understood. Who hasn't gotten lousy bug reports or "trivial patches" that didn't blow up in their face repeatedly for years to come? I get your hostility, I suppose it was pretty naive of me to post a diff out of the blue. We aren't going to be able to be a paying customer any time soon, which is unfortunate, I guess I'll have to come up with an alternate solution then.