You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
That is, if you run gotestsum --rerun-fails --packages ./... -- ../.. then on failure all packages matching ./... will be re-tested. I don't think this is necessarily a bug, but might warrant some more explicit documentation
Reproduction:
$ go mod init module
$ mkdir --parents pkg/foo pkg/bar
// pkg/foo/foo.gopackage foo
funcBoringFunc() int {
return3
}
Maybe it's worth updating the docs to mention how packages should (or shouldn't) be passed when using --rerun-fails?
Further, I guess gotestsumcould try and determine if the user passed both --packages and a list of packages as args to go test and do something then? But I think an update to the docs would be enough.
Thank you for the bug report! I wonder if some are using this as a way to re-run everything on any failure. I do something similar occasionally by specifying extra packages to gotestsum --watch.
I think a warning log message and a docs update would be great!
That is, if you run
gotestsum --rerun-fails --packages ./... -- ../..
then on failure all packages matching./...
will be re-tested. I don't think this is necessarily a bug, but might warrant some more explicit documentationReproduction:
running
gotestsum --rerun-fails --packages ./...
re-runs only the failing test, as expected:However, when run with a list of packages passed as args, all tests are re-run:
Maybe it's worth updating the docs to mention how packages should (or shouldn't) be passed when using
--rerun-fails
?Further, I guess
gotestsum
could try and determine if the user passed both--packages
and a list of packages as args togo test
and do something then? But I think an update to the docs would be enough.I ran into this behaviour in a private repo at my work, but here's another example I found in the wild: https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/blob/54aafa574d2dc4bd281b28f45dc00593c1e337da/GNUmakefile#L287
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: