Test function name starts with test_

[laralove143]

What it does

None of the examples in Rust guidelines on writing tests start functions with test_, which makes for better code quality since tests::foo is more readable than tests::test_foo

Somewhat related to: clippy::module_name_repetitions

Lint Name

test_name_repetitions

Category

pedantic

Advantage

Make the code match Rust guidelines thus making it more idiomatic

Drawbacks

Not sure

Example

#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
    #[test]
    fn test_foo() {
        assert!(true);
    }
}

Could be written as:

rust
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
    #[test]
    fn foo() {
        assert!(true);
    }
}

[ghost]

I've seen that sometimes the test functions are directly in the module that gets tested and not a nested module. I guess the lint isn't applicable in that case.

[laralove143]

Could you elaborate? Maybe showing a module tree

[laralove143]

Is anyone looking into this?

[kraktus]

Could you elaborate? Maybe showing a module tree

Something like that

struct Foo;

// test `Foo` in the middle of the file 
#[cfg(test)]
#[test]
fn test_foo() { todo!() }

struct Bar;

// test `Bar` in the middle of the file 
#[cfg(test)]
#[test]
fn test_bar() { todo!() }

// ...

[laralove143]

Oh I didn't know you could do that, we could just limit this lint for items in a module containing test in its name, kind of like https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#module_name_repetitions

[andrewbanchich]

i personally don't see a point to the test_ prefix even if it isn't in a module containing test in the name.

if the function is a test, we can see

#[cfg(test)]
#[test] // it says test right here. it's the same thing, just moved up a line.
fn foo_works() { todo!() }

so it's obvious in the code. and when we run tests, we see

test foo_works ... ok

so cargo test output already adds a test at the beginning. plus, you just ran cargo test so it should be obvious that the functions you're looking at are tests.

[Caylub]

@rustbot claim

[farazdagi]

@Caylub are you still working on this? If not, I'd like to give it a try (starting with the review comments in your PR).

[Caylub]

@farazdagi Yeah, this is my bad, I opened this with good intentions, and never followed through.

Feel free to pick this up!

[farazdagi]

Thank you!
@rustbot claim