Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 56.81818% with 19 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 77.08%. Comparing base (c3dba17) to head (4c58a5c).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #701      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   77.10%   77.08%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         109      109              
  Lines       24753    24785      +32     
  Branches    24753    24785      +32     
==========================================
+ Hits        19087    19105      +18     
- Misses       3663     3671       +8     
- Partials     2003     2009       +6     

@AlexD10S @Daanvdplas another option is to respect the way cargo does it, which is NOT to have a --test flag and instead place the test filter as the argument. That can be conflictive in the future if we want to add subcommands, but I prefer to raise this now and gather your input.

For reference, cargo does it this way:

cargo test my_contract::tests

@AlexD10S @Daanvdplas another option is to respect the way cargo does it, which is NOT to have a --test flag and instead place the test filter as the argument. That can be conflictive in the future if we want to add subcommands, but I prefer to raise this now and gather your input.

For reference, cargo does it this way:

cargo test my_contract::tests

I personally think this is the way. And it should then also work like pop test --e2e it_works (so not the full path)

I personally think this is the way.

Fine for me, but that will directly break in case in the future we add more subcommands.

And it should then also work like pop test --e2e it_works

Tests can be named equally between different scope (Rust mods). I don't think we should do it that way.

I personally think this is the way.

Fine for me, but that will directly break in case in the future we add more subcommands.

And it should then also work like pop test --e2e it_works

Tests can be named equally between different scope (Rust mods). I don't think we should do it that way.

Oke then we shouldn't do it

@Daanvdplas refactored so that the --test or -t flags are replaced by an extra argument.

$ pop test --help
Test a Rust project

Usage: pop test [OPTIONS] [PATH] [FILTER]
       pop test <COMMAND>

Commands:
  on-runtime-upgrade  Test migrations
  execute-block       Executes the given block against some state
  fast-forward        Executes a runtime upgrade (optional), then mines a number of blocks while performing try-state checks
  create-snapshot     Create a chain state snapshot
  help                Print this message or the help of the given subcommand(s)

Arguments:
  [PATH]  Directory path without flag for your project [default: current directory]

Options:
  -p, --path <PATH>  Directory path for your project [default: current directory]
  -h, --help         Print help

Smart contract testing options:
  -e, --e2e           Run end-to-end tests
  -n, --node <NODE>   Path to the contracts node binary to run e2e tests [default: none]
  -y, --skip-confirm  Automatically source the needed binary required without prompting for confirmation
  [FILTER]        Run with the specified test filter