check_diff function rewrite
#6390
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We're on the right track here, but I think there are a few things we need to double check.
- The
Displayoutput ofdiffy::Patchunder a few different scenarios:
- when the two
&strinputs todiffy::create_patchare the same - when the two
&strinputs todiffy::create_patchare different - The best way I can think to test this would be to create a new trait
CodeFormatterwith a single functionformat_codethat matches the definition we've already defined forRustfmtRunner::format_code. Then you can implement the trait forRustfmtRunnerusing the current definition, and makeCheckDiffRunnersgeneric overT: CodeFormatter. Should be simple enough at that point to create a unit test where you initialize aCheckDiffRunnerswith mock implementation ofCodeFormatterto test the output of callingCheckDiffRunners::create_diff
-
Invoking rustfmt correctly. We probably should write a unit test where we at least compile rustfmt from source and run it on a simple misformatted input and make sure we get back the expected output. We should also review how rust-analyzer calls rustfmt and follow a similar approach, but adapt it for the arguments we want to pass when calling rustfmt.
-
Abstracting the
.rsfiles search and unit testing it to make sure that we're picking up all.rsfiles in the current directory and any nested directories.
| result.push(','); | ||
| for arg in configs.iter() { | ||
| result.push_str(arg.as_str()); | ||
| result.push(','); | ||
| } | ||
| result.pop(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this can be simplified. What we need to do is make sure we add a leading comma before each user supplied option:
| result.push(','); | |
| for arg in configs.iter() { | |
| result.push_str(arg.as_str()); | |
| result.push(','); | |
| } | |
| result.pop(); | |
| for arg in configs.iter() { | |
| result.push(','); | |
| result.push_str(arg.as_str()); | |
| } |
Sine we're concatenating the user supplied options with error_on_line_overflow=false,error_on_unformatted=false the result would be something like:
error_on_line_overflow=false,error_on_unformatted=false,another_config=another_value
| None => String::new(), | ||
| }; | ||
| let config = format!( | ||
| "error_on_line_overflow=false,error_on_unformatted=false{}", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe we need to start this with --config=
| "error_on_line_overflow=false,error_on_unformatted=false{}", | |
| "--config=error_on_line_overflow=false,error_on_unformatted=false{}", |
| fn search_for_rs_files(repo: &Path) -> impl Iterator<Item = PathBuf> { | ||
| return WalkDir::new(repo) | ||
| .into_iter() | ||
| .filter_map(|e| e.ok()) | ||
| .filter(|entry| { | ||
| let path = entry.path(); | ||
| return path.is_file() && path.extension().map_or(false, |ext| ext == "rs"); | ||
| }) | ||
| .map(|entry| entry.into_path()); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Really happy to see that this has been abstracted out. Is there a way to combine these chained calls to filter_map, filter, and map into a single filter_map call?
| search_for_rs_files(repo).for_each(|file| match runners.create_diff(file.as_path(), &config) { | ||
| Ok(diff) => { | ||
| if !diff.is_empty() { | ||
| eprint!("{diff}"); | ||
| errors += 1; | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| Err(e) => { | ||
| eprintln!( | ||
| "Error creating diff for {:?}: {:?}", | ||
| file.as_path().display(), | ||
| e | ||
| ); | ||
| errors += 1; | ||
| } | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Personal preference, but I really think the code is clearer when written using a for loop. Please update this when you get a chance.
| use diffy::{self, create_patch}; | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn diffy_test_diff() { | ||
| let original = "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"; | ||
| let modified = "The quick brown fox jumps over the LAZY dog"; | ||
|
|
||
| let patch = create_patch(original, modified); | ||
| // diffy uses hunks which indicates the lines that are different | ||
| assert_eq!(patch.hunks().is_empty(), false); | ||
| // hence regardless, patch.to_string() will never be empty | ||
| assert_eq!(patch.to_string().is_empty(), false); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn diffy_test_no_diff() { | ||
| let original = "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"; | ||
|
|
||
| let patch = create_patch(original, original); | ||
| assert_eq!(patch.hunks().is_empty(), true); | ||
| assert_eq!(patch.to_string().is_empty(), false); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a good start, and definitely helps demonstrate what we can expect to get back from create_path when the input is the same and when it's different, but I don't think we should be directly testing a 3rd party API in this way. We should be calling our own functions e.g CheckDiffRunners::create_diff, and making assertions based on what they return.
No description provided.