From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BF33D524
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:17:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1D9B31D6EA
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:16:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:16:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6B26D48526
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:16:33 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <8813586d-bf7c-42b7-84ff-9f9eaa745b4d@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:16:32 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Hannes Laimer <h.laimer@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230915065457.352953-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com>
<20230915065457.352953-4-h.laimer@proxmox.com>
<40808fbd-70c7-4c95-a335-67e079891345@proxmox.com>
<f510130f-417f-9ea1-2ea1-d8889b3b1475@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: de-AT, en-US
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <f510130f-417f-9ea1-2ea1-d8889b3b1475@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.031 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [rust-lang.org]
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 03/23] maintenance: add
'Unpplugged' maintenance type
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
<pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 08:17:05 -0000
On 9/21/23 09:41, Hannes Laimer wrote:
>>
>> It's always advisable to have tests in separate submodule:
>>
>> #[cfg(test)]
>> mod tests {
>> use super::*;
>>
>> #[test]
>> fn test_check() {
>> ...
>> }
>> }
>>
>> This makes sure that the test(s) is/are not compiled during a normal
>> build :)
>>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but, AFAIK `#[test]` does that, and since this
> is the only and very simple test a whole mod thing seemed a bit
> overkill, so I stuck with just `#[test]`.
I stand corrected, you are indeed right. To quote [1]:
The test attribute marks a function to be executed as a test. These
functions are only compiled when in test mode.
Maybe I misremember some edge case where this was not the case, or maybe
it was the way I described some time ago and they changed it. TIL.
Anyway, I still think it is good practice to put tests in a separate
module, as it cleanly separates test code from production code. For a
single function this does not make much difference, but maybe somebody
else will add some more tests, extract common test setup code into
helpers, etc. - then they would need to touch the existing code anyway
and move it in a module. In other words, I think it's good to do it the
'clean' way right from the start. :)
[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/attributes/testing.html
--
- Lukas