Add a public function that can be used to test macro expansions #1550
Conversation
ahoppen
force-pushed
the
ahoppen/assert-macro
branch
from
7a16806 to
956ef25
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please test |
ahoppen
changed the title
|
@swift-ci Please test macOS |
|
@swift-ci Please test Windows |
|
@swift-ci Please test macOS |
ahoppen
force-pushed
the
ahoppen/assert-macro
branch
from
956ef25 to
d967132
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please test |
|
@swift-ci Please test Linux |
|
@swift-ci Please test Windows |
ahoppen
force-pushed
the
ahoppen/assert-macro
branch
6 times, most recently
from
462ae24 to
8d1b64d
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please test |
|
@swift-ci Please test Windows |
| @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ let package = Package( | |||
| .library(name: "SwiftSyntax", type: .static, targets: ["SwiftSyntax"]), | |||
| .library(name: "SwiftSyntaxBuilder", type: .static, targets: ["SwiftSyntaxBuilder"]), | |||
| .library(name: "SwiftSyntaxMacros", type: .static, targets: ["SwiftSyntaxMacros"]), | |||
| .library(name: "SwiftSyntaxMacrosTestSupport", type: .static, targets: ["SwiftSyntaxMacrosTestSupport"]), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should add this to the CMake build as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don’t think there’s any reason why this should be in the toolchain. So no need to add it to the CMake build…
| import SwiftParser | ||
| import SwiftSyntax | ||
| import SwiftSyntaxMacros | ||
| import XCTest |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
... or is this why we don't have it in the CMake build?
| public func assertMacroExpansion( | ||
| _ originalSource: String, | ||
| expandedSource: String, | ||
| diagnostics: [DiagnosticSpec] = [], | ||
| macros: [String: Macro.Type], | ||
| testModuleName: String = "TestModule", | ||
| testFileName: String = "test.swift", | ||
| file: StaticString = #file, | ||
| line: UInt = #line |
ahoppen
force-pushed
the
ahoppen/assert-macro
branch
from
8d1b64d to
444648f
Compare
|
Note to self: This requires the BasicFormat improvements I’m merging in other PRs. |
ahoppen
force-pushed
the
ahoppen/assert-macro
branch
from
444648f to
996858b
Compare
Testing macros should be as easy as possible and we should thus make the `assertMacroExpansion` function public. While making the function public, I made the following changes: - Changed `diagnosticMessages` to expect `DiagnsoticSpec` similar to the parser tests. The only difference is that they take line and columns instead of location markers because the location markers have a slighgly high learning curve IMO. Slightly unrelated, I also made the following changes: - Made a few minor improvements to `SwiftParserTest/Assertions.swift` - Fixed a bug in MacroApplication where the wrong syntax node was passed as the `node` parameter` to `addDiagnostics`, leading to a highlight that was bigger than expected.
ahoppen
force-pushed
the
ahoppen/assert-macro
branch
from
996858b to
21654ab
Compare
ahoppen
force-pushed
the
ahoppen/assert-macro
branch
from
21654ab to
dd9c9e8
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please test |
|
@swift-ci Please test Windows |
|
|
||
| private extension String { | ||
| // This implementation is really slow; to use it outside a test it should be optimized. | ||
| func trimmingTrailingWhitespace() -> String { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need this if we've fixed BasicFormat?
| ) | ||
| } | ||
| if diag.notes.count != spec.notes.count { | ||
| XCTFail( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we output both notes, ie. actual and expected? Same with fix-it's below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don’t think it’s worth outputting the expected notes because the diagnostic will point right into the source that defines them. We used to output the expected diagnostics if the count did not match and I found that verbose without giving any value.
| /// - testModuleName: The name of the test module to use. | ||
| /// - testFileName: The name of the test file name to use. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it useful to expose these? It doesn't actually matter for anything right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You could use them in diagnostic messages, right?
| macros: [String: Macro.Type], | ||
| testModuleName: String = "TestModule", | ||
| testFileName: String = "test.swift", | ||
| indentationWidth: Trivia = .spaces(4), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What are your thoughts on indentWidth vs indentationWidth?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don’t have strong feelings. Do you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Define "strong". I prefer indentWidth because it's shorter. But 🤷
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just checked. SwiftSyntax general prefers indentation over indent, so I’d prefer to stick with indentation for consistency.
| @@ -721,51 +673,56 @@ public let testMacros: [String: Macro.Type] = [ | |||
| ] | |||
|
|
|||
| final class MacroSystemTests: XCTestCase { | |||
| private let indentationWidth: Trivia = .spaces(2) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But then I need to access it with Self.indentationWidth which is a little to verbose for my taste.
Testing macros should be as easy as possible and we should thus make the
assertMacroExpansionfunction public.While making the function public, I made the following changes:
diagnosticMessagesto expectDiagnsoticSpecsimilar to the parser tests. The only difference is that they take line and columns instead of location markers because the location markers have a slighgly high learning curve IMO.Slightly unrelated, I also made the following changes:
SwiftParserTest/Assertions.swiftnodeparametertoaddDiagnostics`, leading to a highlight that was bigger than expected.