Skip to content

ExUnit sets a process label for each test #14758

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 9, 2025
Merged

ExUnit sets a process label for each test #14758

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ff5696d
ExUnit sets a process label for each test
nathanl Sep 9, 2025
4f6080d
Update lib/ex_unit/test/ex_unit_test.exs
josevalim Sep 9, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions lib/ex_unit/lib/ex_unit/runner.ex
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -440,6 +440,7 @@ defmodule ExUnit.Runner do
context
) do
spawn_monitor(fn ->
Process.set_label({test.case, test.name})
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Might be overthinking this, but perhaps we could have an extra atom to make it distinguishable programmatically?

- Process.set_label({test.case, test.name})
+ Process.set_label({:ex_unit, test.case, test.name})

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I thought so but the module name should be self explanatory in most cases as it ends with Test by convention!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense, although it doesn't cost much and also might have the benefit of grouping ex_unit tests together nicely if there is any sorting? Anyway, no strong opinion here 🙂

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@sabiwara I saw this later. I like the idea. PR: Make this process label clearer

ExUnit.OnExitHandler.register(self())
generate_test_seed(seed, test, rand_algorithm)
context = context |> Map.merge(test.tags) |> Map.put(:test_pid, self())
Expand Down
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions lib/ex_unit/test/ex_unit_test.exs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1234,6 +1234,14 @@ defmodule ExUnitTest do
end
end

test "sets process label for each test" do
# TODO: Remove check once we support Erlang/OTP 27+
if function_exported?(:proc_lib, :get_label, 1) do
label = apply(:proc_lib, :get_label, [self()])
assert label == {ExUnitTest, :"test sets process label for each test"}
end
end

defp configure_and_reload_on_exit(opts) do
old_opts = ExUnit.configuration()

Expand Down