-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 132
-
Star 2.7k
{{ message }}
Add before_each_task and after_each_task support
#1127
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…onfigSection` `struct` ; [src/lib/execution_plan.rs] Implement `before_each_task` and `after_each_task` via interspersal of steps
…er_each` in `cli::descriptor::load` ; [src/lib/execution_plan.rs] Return to using the already parsed out before|after each
…or the before_each and after_each tasks
sagiegurari
requested changes
Jul 29, 2024
Comment on lines
+641
to
+646
| for (name, _) in config.tasks.iter() { | ||
| match name.as_str() { | ||
| "before_each" => config.config.before_each_task = Some(name.to_string()), | ||
| "after_each" => config.config.after_each_task = Some(name.to_string()), | ||
| _ => {} | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what does this loop actually do? what does it mutate?
meaning are you setting config.before_each_task="before_each"? if so why loop? why not just configure it? why the naming magic?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I couldn't figure out how to else get the before_each_task and after_each_task to be populated. Tried a bunch of solutions, this is the only one that seemed to make it accessible to future locations (specifically src/lib/execution_plan.rs).
src/lib/execution_plan.rs
Outdated
| let end_special = HashSet::from(["end", "end_task"]); | ||
| interspersed_steps.extend(steps.into_iter().flat_map(|e| -> Vec<Step> { | ||
| let mut _steps = Vec::<Step>::with_capacity(before_and_after_each_len + 1); | ||
| if before_special.contains(e.name.as_str()) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe i'm not following this right but you are only pushing an additional task for the init/end tasks but not for other tasks instead of the opposite?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The logic is:
- add a
before_each(if exists) before each task; followed by anafter_each(if exists) after each task
With two addenda:
- if the task is the
inittask and thebefore_eachtask exists, don't prepend thebefore_each - else if the task is the
endtask and theafter_eachtask exists, don't append theafter_each
# Conflicts: # Cargo.lock
…r_each` tasks ; [src/lib/execution_plan_test.rs] Add tests for `before_each` and `after_each`
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
WiP (works but needs tests)
Use cases this facilitates:
cargo-makeas library: task exection in asynchronous persistent queues #1110)beforeEachandafterEachin your test-frameworks)