Replies: 3 comments 1 reply
-
I'm not opposed to the idea though I'd like to think on the best approach. Instinctively I don't like adding another field as it seems like maybe there could be more subsets of output to show with a result? On the other hand, just |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Maybe just |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yep I don't want to introduce a breaking change for this relatively niche feature. I also don't know if the adapters will be able to do what you're looking for right now. They're both relatively simple in how they collect output (i.e. they don't integrate tightly with the test runner), so I don't know if they could distinguish between output streams. @haydenmeade @rouge8 Could I ask you both if neotest core allowed adding more output types, would your adapters be able to do the type of filtering as described above? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi
The adapters I worked with (jest and rust ones) show the whole output of the test in the
output
field which is the place to look for if you want to checkout any debug print statements or anything like that, the problem is, that output is extremely busy and quite unreadable.Example of what Rust outputs in a simple test with a debug statement
What do you think about adding long, similar to short, field to the result table through which adapter could show the interesting things the tests outputs (stdout, stderr, what failed etc.) without other useless information that tester might add?
Cheers
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions