Support more items in #[tests] module
#441
Conversation
| "function requires `#[init]` or `#[test]` attribute", | ||
| )); | ||
| untouched_tokens.push(Box::new(f)); | ||
| continue; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This might paint us into a corner, since it means we can't add other attributes in the future
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought about this case as well.
Keeping the attribute requirement for functions, but allowing everything else is ok?
With the other code change, it would mean, that we can't add any attribute to other items in the future as well, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can't add a newer attribute in a backwards-compatible way under the assumption that every new attribute(-name) is already used / introduced by another crate.
Do I understand that correctly?
What about namespacing? Every attribute from defmt-test lives under defmt_test::init or defmt_test::test and we generate a use defmt_test::test implicitly. Would this be possible or even useful?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can't add a newer attribute in a backwards-compatible way under the assumption that every new attribute(-name) is already used / introduced by another crate.
Yeah that's correct. It wouldn't be too hard to avoid builtin attributes, but you can use arbitrary procedural macros too, which might define their own stuff.
Every attribute from defmt-test lives under
defmt_test::initordefmt_test::testand we generate ause defmt_test::testimplicitly.
There's no name resolution inside the test module, so we can't insert a use, but namespacing does sound like a possible solution for attributes we add later (unfortunately requiring the user to write out a rather long path).
| Item::Union(t) => untouched_tokens.push(Box::new(t)), | ||
| Item::Use(t) => untouched_tokens.push(Box::new(t)), | ||
| Item::Verbatim(t) => { | ||
| untouched_tokens.push(Box::new(t)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you could use a wildcard match here and accumulate syn::Items instead of Box<dyn ToTokens>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Haha, this is a much simpler solution. 😀
Was underestimating the cleverness of the quote! macro.
|
Hi @Sh3Rm4n, Thank you for submitting the PR! Can you please quickly describe how your solution solves the issue :) |
This allows every item to be defined inside the `#[tests]` module, e.g. `struct`s `const`s etc. except for function.
|
This looks like a good start to me but I'll let @jonas-schievink sent this to bors. I think we could support (auxiliary) functions in a new patch version and still have some degree of extensibility by reserving some attribute names, e.g. |
|
It looks like as written this will reject bare bors r+ |
|
Build succeeded: |
This allows every item to be defined inside the
#[tests]module,e.g.
structsconsts etc. except for function.Closes #416