On Sun, May 4, 2025 at 7:30 PM Tamir Duberstein <tam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Alice pointed this out in another thread but: one of the downsides of > returning Result is that in the event of failure the line number where > the error occurred is no longer contained in the test output. I'm 👎 > on this change for that reason.
We could perhaps customize `?` to help here, e.g. printing a trace or panic, with the `Try` trait or similar. Related to this: I thought about saying in the guidelines that `?` in tests is intended for things that you would normally use `?` in similar kernel code, i.e. things that the test is not "testing", rather than things that you would want to assert explicitly. Thus the actual code under test should still have `assert!`s in the right places. I did that in the sample. That way, having `?` would still simplify a lot of test code and yet allow us to differentiate between code under test vs. other code failing. > These changes don't depend on returning `Result` from the tests > AFAICT. Can they be in a separate patch? Not sure what you mean. The change below uses `?`, which is what allows this to be removed. Thanks! Cheers, Miguel
