Closed adam-enko closed 3 weeks ago
Ah, I forgot about binary files. I'll fix that, please wait before reviewing.
UPDATE: binary files are handled correctly now
it would be nice to see also the example of how the failure will be
after
this changes just to compare
Are the test assertions helpful as brief examples?
Are the test assertions helpful as brief examples?
Yes and no :)
In the description you say Currently the failure messages are too obscure, and hard to diagnose
and show the example for big project test failure, while in tests we do have small artificial project, and so I don't fully understand how the diff will look like for big project with nested files/folders etc.
The only thing that I understand which will be better is that there will be diff
s. That's nice!
If that's hard to do, no problem, no need to spend time on this.
But in future it will be much better if it will be possible to see the difference of such changes and if it really solves the problem it's trying to solve :).
While you probably saw before
and after
on your own it's obvious for you what are the pros
, but for me it's just comparing an apple
(example in description) with potato
(example in tests)
So, currently the assertion failure has a pretty file tree, but it's hard to actually see what expected:<[Change at line 44] │ │ │ ├── index.html
actually means.
Does this mean a file is missing or added? Or does it differ in content?
In this PR the assertion failure will provide a comprehensive message for all failures. It will list the files that are unexpected, missing, or differing in content. And, if the content is different, then show what expected/actual content is.
Significantly improve comparison between directories.
Currently the failure messages are too obscure, and hard to diagnose. Example: https://ge.jetbrains.com/s/vl2jgh3ivevyi/tests/task/:dokka-integration-tests:gradle:test/details/org.jetbrains.dokka.it.gradle.AndroidProjectIT/generate%20dokka%20HTML(DokkaGradleProjectRunner)%5B1%5D?top-execution=1