CommandAppTester overrides console

[byte2pixel]

I have been banging my head as to why my unit tests of a single command will pass with doing interactive things. I can create a TestConsole() and set .Interactive = true and provide inputs and it works.

But if I create an integration test using CommandAppTester no matter what I do I always get the console is not interactive.

What I found is that CommandAppTester ignores any console I try to provide.

Whether I try using dependency injection, or app.ConfigureConsole

I found the reason why.

CommandAppTester doesn't use any configured console or check for one in the DI container it just creates a new one.

    public async Task<CommandAppResult> RunAsync(params string[] args)
    {
       // This line here
        var console = new TestConsole().Width(int.MaxValue);
        return await RunAsync(args, console);
    }

What I think should happen is maybe

• use the DI container first(Registrar), if not found there
• then use the configurator.Settings.Console and if not there
• then create a new one?

Thoughts?

If approved, I would be willing to create an issue and open a PR.

[FrankRay78]

A fix has been approved @byte2pixel, see here: #1718

[byte2pixel]

Awesome thanks

[FrankRay78]

Well, lets see if a PR is forthcoming... I'll give it a week or two, then you'd be welcome.

[FrankRay78]

There are other open issues @byte2pixel if you want to contribute - if so, let me know and I can suggest some to look.

[byte2pixel]

Sure, something good for someone new to the project.

…

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025, 09:30 Frank Ray ***@***.***> wrote: There are other open issues @byte2pixel <https://github.com/byte2pixel> if you want to contribute - if so, let me know and I can suggest some to look. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1713 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHQZUTM2VHVBESJLB557B532NOJIDAVCNFSM6AAAAABTLO5J66VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTEMBRHEYTGOA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: <spectreconsole/spectre.console/repo-discussions/1713/comments/12019138@ github.com>

[FrankRay78]

These as well: #1219, #1116, https://github.com/spectreconsole/spectre.console/issues/1159

(I'm tagging them with 'Good First Issue' as I go, so you can find them in the issue search easily: https://github.com/spectreconsole/spectre.console/labels/area-CLI)

[FrankRay78]

@byte2pixel PS. Sorry for the turn around time. Whilst I know OSS has cycle times of months and years, I usually like to do things much quicker. But we are having a family crisis of sorts ATM. However, unlike other PR's that do languish, if you tag me in before you commence work, I'll do my best to get your contributions accepted, so you aren't just pitching into the dark.

[byte2pixel]

@byte2pixel PS. Sorry for the turn around time.

You owe me nothing, let alone an apology. Family is way more important.

• Change the IConfigurator Extension Methods to all return IConfigurator. #1219 Seems to have someone who already did work on it, but didn't open a PR?
• #1159 Seems a bit odd, do you want to do async validation? What sort of I/O bound operation would be done? Would that be better suited for the ExecuteAsync method to handle? I don't know of any examples where I would want some long-running task to happen during the command settings validation. It would be interesting to know the use case for having it there vs. ExecuteAsync doing the longer running stuff where it can use progress indicators etc. (maybe it would be possible to use progress in async validation as well, with this change?)

#1314, #1219, #1116 seem like options I will look them over and comment later tonight. Thanks!

[FrankRay78]

@byte2pixel PS. Sorry for the turn around time.

• Change the IConfigurator Extension Methods to all return IConfigurator. #1219 Seems to have someone who already did work on it, but didn't open a PR?

Seems about right - looks like the work is done, but on the guy's own branch. Low hanging fruit for a useful contribution IMHO. Feel free to open your own PR for this.

[byte2pixel]

I saw his changes did something that was not allowed "reformatting" so I figured I could open one and just address the core issue and skip the reformatting.

[magiino]

I have been banging my head

I'm banging my head against the wall right now, too. :D

I saw that there was no activity, so I implemented it as part of #1718