Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Wording suggestions #2674

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 8, 2024
Merged

Wording suggestions #2674

merged 2 commits into from
Apr 8, 2024

Conversation

nohwnd
Copy link
Member

@nohwnd nohwnd commented Apr 8, 2024

Added few details and simplified some sentences.
Rewrote language to use present time, as is the usual case on learn microsoft.

@@ -32,23 +37,23 @@ Copyright(c) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.
Passed! - Failed: 0, Passed: 1, Skipped: 0, Total: 1, Duration: 5ms - Contoso.UnitTests.dll (win-x64 - .NET 9.0.0-preview.1.24080.9)
```

When working in the testing space, it is common to collect information from test sessions to evaluate code quality.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is interesting detail, but it seemed to distract from what you were trying to highlight, which was starting one more process.

@@ -63,4 +64,4 @@ return await testApplication.RunAsync();
```

> [!NOTE]
> Return empty [ITestFrameworkCapabilities](capabilities.md) should not hinder the execution of the test session. The fundamental features of discovering and running tests should always be ensured. The impact should be limited to extensions that may opt out if the test framework lacks a certain feature.
> Returning empty [ITestFrameworkCapabilities](capabilities.md) should not prevent the execution of the test session. All test frameworks should be capable of discovering and running tests. The impact should be limited to extensions that may opt out if the test framework lacks a certain feature.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am actually not fully sure what you meant here.

The impact should be limited to extensions that may opt out if the test framework lacks a certain feature.

Do you mean that test framework announces capabilities that are additional to discover, and run. And other extensions can use those capabilities to disable themselves based on that? E.g. if my framework can (non-conditionally) provide source code file paths (e.g. via source gen), and I have extension that relies on source code file paths, I can use the capability to enable or disable my extension.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For instance if your adapter doesn't support the trx capability your tests will run or be discovered and simply if the trx extension is involved will be a trx extension duty decide what to do. Today for instance we print in console something like "trx will be subotimal"

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And other extensions can use those capabilities to disable themselves based on that?

Not only disable but if implemented get the needed information to work correctly.

@MarcoRossignoli MarcoRossignoli merged commit 1da2810 into main Apr 8, 2024
3 checks passed
@MarcoRossignoli MarcoRossignoli deleted the review-tp-docs branch April 8, 2024 10:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants