Let’s just remove excluded from the total of tests. No need to add a new entry. :)
*José Valimhttps://dashbit.co/ <https://dashbit.co/>* On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 22:40 Kieran <kieran.eg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Great! I'll do that next week (: > > Any preference on the wording? A few options: > > - Update the test count to only count the tests that were run. My > example above would become: 9 tests, 2 failures, 15 excluded > - This is my preference, but I'm not picky > - Keep the existing output but add in a new field for the tests > that were run. My example above would become: 24 tests, 9 executed, 2 > failures, 15 excluded > - This one feels more redundant > - I'm open to labelling it something other than "executed" but > that's all I can think of at the moment > > > On Friday, December 13, 2024 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-8 José Valim wrote: > >> Yes, I think that’s better, I have ran into the same scenario. Please do >> submit a PR. >> >> >> >> *José Valimhttps://dashbit.co/ <https://dashbit.co/>* >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 20:30 Kieran <kieran...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> When testing a single file with ExUnit you can run a subset of tests by >>> appending a :<line number> to your mix test command. >>> >>> *Problem:* >>> >>> Currently this outputs the *overall* number of tests in the current >>> module, the number of failures, and the number of tests you've excluded. >>> Example: 24 tests, 2 failures, 15 excluded. This means I have to do mental >>> math to figure out how many tests actually passed. This isn't a huge >>> problem, but when I'm focusing on a refactor it gets tedious to always be >>> thinking "24 minus 15 is 9 so I'm actually testing 9 things, 2 of which are >>> failing". >>> >>> It's a small amount of additional cognitive overhead that adds up over >>> time. I'm currently in the middle of a large-scale refactor so I'm >>> especially aware of it in this moment >>> >>> *Proposal:* >>> >>> Simply update the output of ExUnit to include how many tests were >>> actually ran. I'm not sure what the best wording would be, but a >>> distinction between how many tests exist within the module vs. how many >>> were tested would be valuable information (at least for me) >> >> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "elixir-lang-core" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to elixir-lang-co...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/6fc62f86-e0f8-415d-90d0-9bf65bbaaba9n%40googlegroups.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/6fc62f86-e0f8-415d-90d0-9bf65bbaaba9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "elixir-lang-core" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/3955a7c9-aebd-42fa-abaf-a39141c84327n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/3955a7c9-aebd-42fa-abaf-a39141c84327n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4%2BH0QLz5mYboF%3DzOMik%3Dw35ktkOraFbBe-rQxQ-BSkPOg%40mail.gmail.com.
