Testing rexpect app
@ekarlsn is already working on this.
Since Oct 14, 2022.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 391
- Forks
- 69
- Avg merge
- 1d 34m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 2
Description
It would be nice if we could provide an easy way to test rexpect apps. Maybe something like this?
fn main() -> Result<(), Error> {
let mut p = rexpect::spawn("cat", Some(300))?;
use_cat(&mut p)?;
Ok(())
}
fn use_cat(p: &mut PtySession) -> Result<(), Error> {
p.send_line("I'm a cat")?;
p.exp_string("I'm a cat\r\n")?;
Ok(())
}
mod test {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn option1() -> Result<(), Error> {
use_cat(
rexpect::testing::FakePtySession()
.recv("I'm a cat")
.send("I'm a cat"),
)?;
Ok(())
}
fn option2() -> Result<(), Error> {
let mut p = rexpect::testing::FakePtySession();
std::thread::spawn(|| use_cat(p));
p.recv("I'm a cat");
p.send("I'm a cat");
Ok(())
}
}
Or any suggestions for a better interface? I think option2 looks nicer in the test case, but I think option1 is overall better, since it doesn't require spinning up a new thread, and needing to sync between the two.
I'm not sure how we could get nice error messages with either approach, but I'm working on option1 at the moment and will see how it turns out.
I haven't seen any crates providing special testing-utilities, is it normally not done? Should we have it behind a feature-flag?
Implementation wise, it looks like we would have to store Box<impl PtyProcess> in PtySession and Box<impl Write> in StreamSession. So that we can keep PtySession without template arguments. This would break the API, but I don't think it should be a problem?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Assessment
This issue has not been assessed yet.