-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
#[test]s on non top-level functions. #29182
Labels
A-testsuite
Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc
C-enhancement
Category: An issue proposing an enhancement or a PR with one.
Comments
sfackler
added
the
A-testsuite
Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc
label
Oct 20, 2015
Triage: no change. |
steveklabnik
added
the
C-enhancement
Category: An issue proposing an enhancement or a PR with one.
label
Mar 8, 2017
Triage: no change. Given that this was filed in 2015, with zero additional comments, I'm going to close this. We have some work underway for more flexible test runners; they may or may not implement this feature, but it doesn't appear like this is something broadly desired nor going to be implemented any time soon. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
A-testsuite
Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc
C-enhancement
Category: An issue proposing an enhancement or a PR with one.
It would be nice if we could implement test cases directly on a type that they test. This is especially useful when generating code (and test cases) with macros.
In the example below, the expected result would be
Unit::my_important_test
when testing.Alternatively one can just create a non_camel_case module sharing the same identifier as the
struct
. But this looks off for that exact reason. And abuses the bug as reported in #29185.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: