rework tests to show summary (sections)

[t-bltg]

Per #53 (comment).

Rework tests to use the default Test package instead of TestItemRunner (I don't see the added value of using this dependency), allowing to show the @testset description while running the tests, thus categorizing stdout into clear sections.

Not doing so is confusing especially when a test is failing because the failing test output is mixed with the CondaPkg / μmamba output from a previous non-failing test.

Example output:

[...]
Test Summary:  | Pass  Total     Time
add/rm package |    3      3  1m40.4s
    CondaPkg Found dependencies: /tmp/jl_vtam3r/CondaPkg.toml
    CondaPkg Dependencies already up to date
    CondaPkg Dependencies already up to date
Test Summary:  | Pass  Total  Time
add/rm channel |    2      2  0.7s
[...]

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #58 (7fdc54f) into main (4ecd7a2) will decrease coverage by 0.67%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #58      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   87.66%   87.00%   -0.67%     
==========================================
  Files           7        7              
  Lines         900      900              
==========================================
- Hits          789      783       -6     
- Misses        111      117       +6     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/env.jl	94.82% <0.00%> (-1.73%)	⬇️
src/resolve.jl	91.61% <0.00%> (-1.45%)	⬇️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[cjdoris]

I want to keep the @testitems - they allow you to run individual tests from VSCode, which I use a lot.

You may be able to achieve a similar effect by simply printing the name at the start of a test item. It may even be possible to programmatically get the name of the enclosing test item, I don't know.

[t-bltg]

You may be able to achieve a similar effect by simply printing the name at the start of a test item

I wanted to avoid the redundancy of the test name.

It may even be possible to programmatically get the name of the enclosing test item, I don't know.

Yeah, writing a macro, don't know if that will enhance clarity.

[cjdoris]

I want to keep the @testitem functionality, so won't be merging this as-is. Are you going to look at other ways to separate the output, or shall I close this for now?

[t-bltg]

I tried implementing something else without success, TestItemRunner is problematic IMO.

I leave this to your appreciation, but I really think splitting the tests stdout into sections is needed (maybe adding a print is sufficient, but the redundancy with the @testitem test name makes it a typical job for a macro for clarity).