Added warning: Async test method must have non-void return type #69

304NotModified · 2018-08-19T21:59:21Z

Fixes #7

304NotModified · 2018-08-19T21:59:55Z

...rs.tests/Targets/TestCaseUsage/TestCaseUsageAnalyzerTestsAnalyzeWhenReturnTypeIsAsyncVoid.cs

+{
+    class TestCaseUsageAnalyzerTestsAnalyzeWhenReturnTypeIsAsyncVoid
+    {
+        [Test]


note, this isn't a TestCase, but a Test

Perhaps we will - at some time - need a test for both cases. But for now I think it is fine

304NotModified · 2018-08-19T22:00:24Z

src/nunit.analyzers/Constants/TestCaseUsageAnalyzerConstants.cs

@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ internal static class TestCaseUsageAnalyzerConstants
        internal const string ExpectedResultTypeMismatchMessage = "The ExpectedResult value cannot be assigned to the return type, {0}";
        internal const string NotEnoughArgumentsMessage = "There are not enough arguments provided from the TestCaseAttribute for the method";
        internal const string SpecifiedExpectedResultForVoidMethodMessage = "Cannot specify ExpectedResult when the method returns void";
+        internal const string AsyncVoidMessage = "Async test method must have non-void return type";


Not sure if this should be in TestCaseUsageAnalyzerConstants

We will need another class as most of the async validations will be for Test and TestCase attributes.

304NotModified · 2018-08-19T22:01:04Z

src/nunit.analyzers/TestCaseUsage/TestCaseUsageAnalyzer.cs

                    if (testCaseType.ContainingAssembly.Identity == attributeSymbol?.ContainingAssembly.Identity &&
-                        NunitFrameworkConstants.NameOfTestCaseAttribute == attributeSymbol?.ContainingType.Name)
+                        (isTestCase = NunitFrameworkConstants.NameOfTestCaseAttribute == attributeSymbol?.ContainingType.Name)
+                        ||  NunitFrameworkConstants.NameOfTestAttribute == attributeSymbol?.ContainingType.Name)


maybe this could be simplified,. note this is now checking for TestCase + Test attributes

Personally, I don't like assignments within boolean expressions (can be that I've not programmed enough C/C++). The plan is to have another analyzer that will run for both Test and TestCase attributes.

304NotModified · 2018-08-19T22:01:27Z

src/nunit.analyzers/TestCaseUsage/TestCaseUsageAnalyzer.cs

                        }
+
+                        AnalyzeReturnType(context, methodSymbol);


note: this will run with Test+TestCase

304NotModified · 2018-08-19T22:01:57Z

src/nunit.analyzers/TestCaseUsage/TestCaseUsageAnalyzer.cs

+                                context.CancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
+                                TestCaseUsageAnalyzer.AnalyzeNamedArguments(context,
+                                    attributeNamedArguments, methodSymbol);
+                            }


note: nothing changed in this block above (lines 66-98)

304NotModified · 2018-09-03T18:29:41Z

any opinion on this one?

mikkelbu · 2018-09-05T06:54:21Z

src/nunit.analyzers/Constants/NunitFrameworkConstants.cs

@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ public static class NunitFrameworkConstants
        public const string FullNameOfTypeTestCaseAttribute = "NUnit.Framework.TestCaseAttribute";

        public const string NameOfTestCaseAttribute = "TestCaseAttribute";
+        public const string NameOfTestAttribute = "TestAttribute";


I've exactly the same line in my local changes 😄

mikkelbu · 2018-09-05T06:54:27Z

src/nunit.analyzers/Constants/TestCaseUsageAnalyzerConstants.cs

@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ internal static class TestCaseUsageAnalyzerConstants
        internal const string ExpectedResultTypeMismatchMessage = "The ExpectedResult value cannot be assigned to the return type, {0}";
        internal const string NotEnoughArgumentsMessage = "There are not enough arguments provided from the TestCaseAttribute for the method";
        internal const string SpecifiedExpectedResultForVoidMethodMessage = "Cannot specify ExpectedResult when the method returns void";
+        internal const string AsyncVoidMessage = "Async test method must have non-void return type";


We will need another class as most of the async validations will be for Test and TestCase attributes.

mikkelbu · 2018-09-05T06:56:27Z

src/nunit.analyzers/TestCaseUsage/TestCaseUsageAnalyzer.cs

                    if (testCaseType.ContainingAssembly.Identity == attributeSymbol?.ContainingAssembly.Identity &&
-                        NunitFrameworkConstants.NameOfTestCaseAttribute == attributeSymbol?.ContainingType.Name)
+                        (isTestCase = NunitFrameworkConstants.NameOfTestCaseAttribute == attributeSymbol?.ContainingType.Name)
+                        ||  NunitFrameworkConstants.NameOfTestAttribute == attributeSymbol?.ContainingType.Name)


Personally, I don't like assignments within boolean expressions (can be that I've not programmed enough C/C++). The plan is to have another analyzer that will run for both Test and TestCase attributes.

mikkelbu · 2018-09-05T06:58:03Z

src/nunit.analyzers/TestCaseUsage/TestCaseUsageAnalyzer.cs

@@ -128,6 +136,22 @@ private static void AnalyzeAttribute(SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context)
                }
            }
        }
+        private static void AnalyzeReturnType(SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context, IMethodSymbol methodSymbol)


Major nit pick. Insert empty line before method and remove the empty line beginning the statements within the if statement below

mikkelbu · 2018-09-05T07:00:52Z

src/nunit.analyzers/TestCaseUsage/TestCaseUsageAnalyzer.cs

+                {
+                    context.ReportDiagnostic(Diagnostic.Create(
+                        TestCaseUsageAnalyzer.CreateDescriptor(
+                            TestCaseUsageAnalyzerConstants.AsyncVoidMessage),


Shouldn't this also be mentioned in SupportedDiagnostics?

mikkelbu · 2018-09-05T07:01:31Z

...rs.tests/Targets/TestCaseUsage/TestCaseUsageAnalyzerTestsAnalyzeWhenReturnTypeIsAsyncVoid.cs

+{
+    class TestCaseUsageAnalyzerTestsAnalyzeWhenReturnTypeIsAsyncVoid
+    {
+        [Test]


Perhaps we will - at some time - need a test for both cases. But for now I think it is fine

mikkelbu · 2018-09-05T07:11:45Z

Hi @304NotModified
Thanks for the contribution, and again sorry about the delay, but I've only had time to very little the last copuple of weeks. Overall, I think it looks good, but I prefer that all the async functionality is placed in a separate analyzer (to keep the classes smaller). As I noted in the issue (#7) I've also started working on one of the other async tasks (#48), and I hoped to be done with it 10 days ago, but since then no much has happened 😞.

But my "plan" is as follows:

Create a new async analyzer for both Test and TestCase attributes (to begin with mostly a copy of the existing TestCase analyzer, then we can always improve on it - since some of the result type checking will be different from non-async methods to async methods)
Add your changes on top of the new analyzer (I think we can use the test and the body of the analyzer - AnalyzeReturnType - more or less directly).

I've also added some minor comments in the code, but please don't spend time on them before I've pushed the skeleton for #48

304NotModified · 2018-09-05T08:29:33Z

Thanks for the contribution, and again sorry about the delay, but I've only had time to very little the last copuple of weeks.

No problem! It's the nature of open source IMO 😄

Create a new async analyzer for both Test and TestCase attributes (to begin with mostly a copy of the existing TestCase analyzer, then we can always improve on it - since some of the result type checking will be different from non-async methods to async methods)

Could we create subclasses etc? e.g. a base class for the sharing functionality and the a subclass for Test attribute and and for testcase attribute?

Add your changes on top of the new analyzer (I think we can use the test and the body of the analyzer - AnalyzeReturnType - more or less directly).

If I need to rebase stuff, no problem. Just let me know

mikkelbu · 2018-12-03T23:13:48Z

@304NotModified Once more I've left this hanging for much too long, and I'm sorry about that.
I think that the easiest solution would be to extend the method AnalyzeExpectedResult to also handle that there is no ExpectedResultAttribute, but that the return type is not null.
I'm unsure how much can be reapplied from this PR, and I can fully understand if you think that your time is better spent somewhere else given the lack of feedback from my side, but I'll try to increase the activity on this project again.

304NotModified · 2018-12-04T16:13:31Z

When I found time (i'm also very busy these days), I will create a new PR with the changes!

Added warning: Async test method must have non-void return type

a82135d

304NotModified commented Aug 19, 2018

View reviewed changes

304NotModified mentioned this pull request Aug 19, 2018

Feature request: Look for async void tests #7

Closed

mikkelbu reviewed Sep 5, 2018

View reviewed changes

304NotModified mentioned this pull request Sep 8, 2018

[WIP] Refactor tests tryout #73

Closed

mikkelbu mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2018

NUNIT_7 does not cater for Task and ValueTask #79

Closed

304NotModified closed this Dec 4, 2018

mikkelbu added this to the Closed Without Action milestone Apr 13, 2020

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Added warning: Async test method must have non-void return type #69

Added warning: Async test method must have non-void return type #69

304NotModified commented Aug 19, 2018

304NotModified Aug 19, 2018

mikkelbu Sep 5, 2018

304NotModified Aug 19, 2018

mikkelbu Sep 5, 2018

304NotModified Aug 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

mikkelbu Sep 5, 2018

304NotModified Aug 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

304NotModified Aug 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

304NotModified commented Sep 3, 2018

mikkelbu Sep 5, 2018

304NotModified Sep 5, 2018

mikkelbu Sep 5, 2018

mikkelbu Sep 5, 2018

mikkelbu Sep 5, 2018

mikkelbu Sep 5, 2018

mikkelbu Sep 5, 2018

mikkelbu commented Sep 5, 2018 •

edited

Loading

304NotModified commented Sep 5, 2018

mikkelbu commented Dec 3, 2018

304NotModified commented Dec 4, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Added warning: Async test method must have non-void return type #69

Added warning: Async test method must have non-void return type #69

Conversation

304NotModified commented Aug 19, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

304NotModified Aug 19, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

304NotModified Aug 19, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

304NotModified Aug 19, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

304NotModified commented Sep 3, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mikkelbu commented Sep 5, 2018 • edited Loading

304NotModified commented Sep 5, 2018

mikkelbu commented Dec 3, 2018

304NotModified commented Dec 4, 2018 • edited Loading

304NotModified Aug 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

304NotModified Aug 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

304NotModified Aug 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

mikkelbu commented Sep 5, 2018 •

edited

Loading

304NotModified commented Dec 4, 2018 •

edited

Loading