|
| 1 | +# Public API to evaluate ConditionTrait |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +* Proposal: [SWT-NNNN](NNNN-evaluate-condition.md) |
| 4 | +* Authors: [David Catmull](https://github.com/Uncommon) |
| 5 | +* Status: **Awaiting review** |
| 6 | +* Implementation: [swiftlang/swift-testing#909](https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-testing/pull/909) |
| 7 | +* Review: ([pitch](https://forums.swift.org/...)) |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +## Introduction |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +This adds an `evaluate()` method to `ConditionTrait` to evaluate the condition |
| 12 | +without requiring a `Test` instance. |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +## Motivation |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +Currently, the only way a `ConditionTrait` is evaluated is inside the |
| 17 | +`prepare(for:)` method. This makes it difficult for third-party libraries to |
| 18 | +utilize these traits because evaluating a condition would require creating a |
| 19 | +dummy `Test` to pass to that method. |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +## Proposed solution |
| 22 | + |
| 23 | +The proposal is to add a `ConditionTrait.evaluate()` method which returns the |
| 24 | +result of the evaluation. The existing `prepare(for:)` method is updated to call |
| 25 | +`evaluate()` so that the logic is not duplicated. |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +## Detailed design |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +The signature is `evaluate() async throws -> Evaluation`, where `Evaluation` is |
| 30 | +a `typealias` for the tuple already used for the callback in `Kind.conditional`, |
| 31 | +containing a boolean result and an optional comment. |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +## Source compatibility |
| 34 | + |
| 35 | +This change is purely additive. |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +## Integration with supporting tools |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +This change allows third-party libraries to apply condition traits at other |
| 40 | +levels than suites or whole test functions, for example if tests are broken up |
| 41 | +into smaller sections. |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +## Future directions |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +This change seems sufficient for third party libraries to make use of |
| 46 | +`ConditionTrait`. Changes for other traits can be tackled in separate proposals. |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | +## Alternatives considered |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +Exposing `ConditionTrait.Kind` and `.kind` was also considered, but it seemed |
| 51 | +unnecessary to go that far, and it would encourage duplicating the logic that |
| 52 | +already exists in `prepare(for:)`. |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +In the first draft implementation, the `Evaluation` type was an enum that only |
| 55 | +contained the comment in the failure case. It was changed to match the existing |
| 56 | +tuple to allow for potentially including comments for the success case without |
| 57 | +requiring a change to the API. |
0 commit comments