[Tests] Convert InitTests to Swift Testing #9079

plemarquand · 2025-08-29T20:42:36Z

Now that #9032 has landed, take the work from #8995 to convert the InitTests to Swift Testing and break it out in to its own PR.

bripeticca · 2025-09-04T14:48:21Z

@swift-ci please test windows

bripeticca · 2025-09-04T14:49:28Z

Sources/_InternalTestSupport/SwiftTesting+Helpers.swift

+///
+/// - Parameters:
+///   - path: The absolute path to check for file existence.
+///   - sourceLocation: The source location where the expectation is made.


praise: thank you for adding documentation to these files! this makes it a lot more readable.

bripeticca · 2025-09-04T14:51:10Z

Tests/WorkspaceTests/InitTests.swift

+import Testing
+import SPMBuildCore
+
+/// Tests for the `InitPackage` functionality, which creates new Swift packages with different configurations.


praise: another thank you for the comments/documentation here!

plemarquand · 2025-09-22T13:56:40Z

@swift-ci test

plemarquand · 2025-09-22T13:56:52Z

@swift-ci test windows

plemarquand · 2025-09-22T18:59:54Z

@swift-ci test

plemarquand · 2025-09-22T18:59:58Z

@swift-ci test windows

plemarquand · 2025-09-24T13:28:22Z

@swift-ci test windows

plemarquand · 2025-09-25T23:21:58Z

@swift-ci test windows

plemarquand · 2025-09-27T17:56:24Z

@swift-ci test windows

plemarquand · 2025-10-06T12:58:03Z

@swift-ci test windows

plemarquand · 2025-10-07T18:59:53Z

@swift-ci test

plemarquand · 2025-10-07T19:00:13Z

@swift-ci test windows

plemarquand · 2025-10-14T17:42:25Z

@swift-ci test

plemarquand · 2025-10-14T17:42:30Z

@swift-ci test windows

plemarquand · 2025-10-22T19:02:07Z

@swift-ci test windows

plemarquand · 2025-10-22T19:34:48Z

@swift-ci test

plemarquand · 2025-10-22T19:35:57Z

@swift-ci test windows

bkhouri

Thanks for migrating the Package Init Tests to Swift Testing. I have some blocking comments, hence the "requests changes". I'm happy to have a discussion if you feel the comments are non-blocking.

bkhouri · 2025-10-22T19:11:15Z

Sources/_InternalTestSupport/misc.swift

+
+    // Use shorter prefix on Windows to avoid MAX_PATH issues
+    #if os(Windows)
+    let prefix = "spm-\(abs(cleanedFunction.hashValue))"


suggestion: if we want to use short prefix on Windows, why don't we set prefix = ""?

bkhouri · 2025-10-22T19:13:07Z

Tests/WorkspaceTests/InitTests.swift

+        env: Environment? = nil,
+        sourceLocation: SourceLocation = #_sourceLocation,
+    ) async {
+        for conf in configurations {


suggestion: instead of providing configurations as a function argument, consider passing as a test parameter so it can be clearly tracked as it's own test. See https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-package-manager/blob/main/Tests/CommandsTests/PackageCommandTests.swift#L100-L112 as a sample test that add a cross matrix of build system and build configurations. The name SupportedBuildSystemOnAllPlatforms is a bit misleading, but it currently is an array containing Native and Swift Build build systems.

bkhouri · 2025-10-22T19:17:56Z

Tests/WorkspaceTests/InitTests.swift

            let manifest = path.appending("Package.swift")
-            XCTAssertFileExists(manifest)
-            let manifestContents: String = try localFileSystem.readFileContents(manifest)
+            expectFileExists(at: manifest)


suggestion: consider changing this to a try #require(...), which may mean we need to create an associated helper if one does not currently exist. Using require makes more sense here since the following code requires it.

bkhouri · 2025-10-22T19:20:54Z

Tests/WorkspaceTests/InitTests.swift

+
+        switch packageType {
+        case .library:
+            if buildSystem == .native {


suggestion: instead of using an if statement, consider using a switch buildSystem to ensure the tests are updated properly should entries to BuildSystemProvider.Kind be added or removed - this would ensure the tests are at least updated/looked at..

bkhouri · 2025-10-22T19:23:01Z

Tests/WorkspaceTests/InitTests.swift

+        case .executable, .tool:
+            expectFileExists(at: expectedPath.appending(executableName(name)))
+        case .empty, .buildToolPlugin, .commandPlugin, .macro:
+            // These types don't have specific build products to verify or are verified separately


question: do we want to support tests calling this? this may provide a false positive. Consider calling Issue.record("Test implementation issue: \(packageType) don't have specific build products to verify. Replace this function call with a different verification steps") instead.

bkhouri · 2025-10-22T19:57:36Z

Tests/WorkspaceTests/InitTests.swift


-    func testInitPackageNonc99Directory() async throws {
+    /// Tests creating a package in a directory with a non-C99 compliant name.
+    @Test(arguments: [BuildSystemProvider.Kind.native, .swiftbuild])


suggestion: consider passing the Build configuration as a test argument.

Suggested change

@Test(arguments: [BuildSystemProvider.Kind.native, .swiftbuild])

@Test(

arguments: getBuildData(for: SupportedBuildSystemOnAllPlatforms),

)

bkhouri · 2025-10-22T19:58:26Z

Tests/WorkspaceTests/InitTests.swift

-    func testInitPackageNonc99Directory() async throws {
+    /// Tests creating a package in a directory with a non-C99 compliant name.
+    @Test(arguments: [BuildSystemProvider.Kind.native, .swiftbuild])
+    func initPackageNonc99Directory(buildSystem: BuildSystemProvider.Kind) async throws {


Providing the build configuration via test arguments, as suggestd above, will update the argument type as follows:

Suggested change

func initPackageNonc99Directory(buildSystem: BuildSystemProvider.Kind) async throws {

func initPackageNonc99Directory(

data: BuildData,

) async throws {

bkhouri · 2025-10-22T20:00:30Z

Tests/WorkspaceTests/InitTests.swift

+            await expectBuilds(packageRoot, buildSystem: buildSystem)
+
+            // Assert that the expected build products exist
+            let expectedPath = packageRoot.appending(components: try buildSystem.binPath(for: BuildConfiguration.debug))


issue (blocking): Since the test currently build both debug and release build configuration, we should also assert on the expected behaviour for the release build configuration.

bkhouri · 2025-10-22T20:03:05Z

Tests/WorkspaceTests/InitTests.swift

+            let expectedPath = packageRoot.appending(components: try buildSystem.binPath(for: BuildConfiguration.debug))
+
+            // Verify the module name is properly mangled
+            if buildSystem == .native {


suggestion: change this from an if to a swift so we get compilation time error should the build system kinds be updated.

I used the following when I wanted to support a subset of build systems in a test

switch buildSystem { case .native: #expect("native build expectations".count > 1) case .swiftbuild: #expect("swift build expectations".count > 1) case .xcode: Issue.record("Test expectations have not been implemented.") }

bkhouri · 2025-10-22T20:03:54Z

Tests/WorkspaceTests/InitTests.swift

-                buildSystem: .native,
-            )
+
+            await expectBuilds(packageRoot, buildSystem: buildSystem)


suggestion: consider adding the build configuration as a test data

plemarquand requested review from bkhouri, bripeticca, cmcgee1024, daveyc123, dschaefer2, jakepetroules, owenv and shawnhyam as code owners August 29, 2025 20:42

plemarquand force-pushed the init-tests-to-swift-testing branch from f556bd1 to 4a43f2f Compare August 31, 2025 19:13

bripeticca approved these changes Sep 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

plemarquand force-pushed the init-tests-to-swift-testing branch from 4a43f2f to ce0cf11 Compare September 12, 2025 00:04

plemarquand added 2 commits September 22, 2025 09:56

[Tests] Convert InitTests to Swift Testing

0f5aac0

Fixup tests

dc936c4

plemarquand force-pushed the init-tests-to-swift-testing branch from 196f5e1 to 3c6643d Compare September 22, 2025 13:56

plemarquand requested a review from rconnell9 as a code owner September 22, 2025 13:56

plemarquand force-pushed the init-tests-to-swift-testing branch from 3c6643d to 5264211 Compare September 22, 2025 18:49

Fixup rebase

9f2a73e

plemarquand force-pushed the init-tests-to-swift-testing branch from 5264211 to 9f2a73e Compare September 22, 2025 18:59

jakepetroules approved these changes Oct 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Pass through function name to fix long path issues on windows

b60f7dd

Generate shorter tmp directory names on Windows

4193eb6

Even shorter Windows tmp directory paths

4a3f755

plemarquand force-pushed the init-tests-to-swift-testing branch from 326df82 to 4a3f755 Compare October 22, 2025 19:34

bkhouri requested changes Oct 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

[Tests] Convert InitTests to Swift Testing #9079

Are you sure you want to change the base?

[Tests] Convert InitTests to Swift Testing #9079

Uh oh!

Conversation

plemarquand commented Aug 29, 2025

Uh oh!

bripeticca commented Sep 4, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Sep 22, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Sep 22, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Sep 22, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Sep 22, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Sep 24, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Sep 25, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Sep 27, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Oct 6, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Oct 7, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Oct 7, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Oct 14, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Oct 14, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Oct 22, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Oct 22, 2025

Uh oh!

plemarquand commented Oct 22, 2025

Uh oh!

bkhouri left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants