The indent function always adds a final \n, even if the input string has no \n

[jRimbault]

Example:

// this test fails currently
#[test]
fn indented_text_should_have_the_same_number_of_lines_as_the_original_text() {
    let texts = ["foo\nbar", "foo\nbar\n", "foo\nbar\nbaz"];
    for original in texts.iter() {
        let indented = indent(original, "");
        assert_eq!(&indented, original);
    }
}

There should be the same number of lines in the input and output (unless the prefix contains a newline).

Python tests reference, python source reference, can't be implemented the same way in rust without the split_inclusive feature. (cf. python's splitlines)

Python script passes the same test

from textwrap import indent

for original in ["foo\nbar", "foo\nbar\n", "foo\nbar\nbaz"]:
    indented = indent(original, "")
    assert original == indented

[mgeisler]

Hi @jRimbault Thank you very much for the excellent bug report and the accompanying fixes!

Since it uses a nightly API, I guess we'll just let is sit and wait for a bit...?

In the mean time, I'll have to look at why the tests didn't actually break as expected! I recently switched to GitHub actions, but I must have misconfigured it somehow :-)

If I read #208 and #209 correctly, then I think #208 is a subset of #209? If so, I would prefer to close #208 and simply merge the tests together with the implementation.

[jRimbault]

I made #208 in case you wanted to merge the tests in some working branch of yours ? It's really only just in case it's useful to you. If you look at #209's history detail you'll see I made other partial fixes (559df5c) before using the nightly feature, but I couldn't figure it out completely. I thought you should have a go at fixing it yourself if interested ^^ of course you can close it

I think waiting for the split_inclusive to be in stable shouldn't take too long, it's a simple feature and it's only missing a stabilization PR.

PS: in your workflow you only need

on: [push, pull_request]

[mgeisler]

Thanks for the tip about fixing the GitHub workflow!

I don't have a working branch as such, so I'll just close #208 for now.