-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.7k
Treat hidden IndexedStack children as offstage for test finder
#123129
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.
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
Treat hidden IndexedStack children as offstage for test finder
#123129
Conversation
|
For future readers: Context #122393 (comment) |
|
I've kicked off an internal test run, let's see what happens... |
dfc5539 to
df434c4
Compare
goderbauer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please also add tests that specifically test the new behavior of the offstage behavior of IndexStack.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will consider all children onstage, right? I though if the index is null, the IndexedStack displays nothing, so all of them should be offstage?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
couldn't this be simplified to
| final Iterator<Element> onlyOnstageChild = children.skip(index).iterator; | |
| if (onlyOnstageChild.moveNext()) { | |
| visitor(onlyOnstageChild.current); | |
| } | |
| visitor(children.elementAt(index)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I had to special-case the scenario where index is out of bounds because there are no children (the default when constructing an IndexedStack()), but elementAt is much more readable. Thanks for the suggestion!
|
From initial testing, it doesn't look too bad. Once the comment about the |
df434c4 to
623980f
Compare
goderbauer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, but we have to wait and see what Google Testing does
623980f to
1e2364a
Compare
|
@simolus3 something got messed up when I tried to rebase this PR and a lot of checks are failing now. If you have a chance, could you take a look? |
|
The customer_testing checks are failing because of #123669. |
84fe65c to
78c70a8
Compare
|
The handful of google tests that were failing on this have been migrated, so all checks are green on this PR now. We just need to get a secondary review on this to land it. |
Piinks
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
|
As FYI, this is breaking Google Testing, and I've put up a revert in #124035. I'm checking with @goderbauer and @Piinks to see if we can fix forward without the need to revert this change. |
|
A g3fix for that breakage is scheduled. No further action should be necessary. |
…tter#123129) Treat hidden `IndexedStack` children as offstage for test finder

This PR is a duplicate of #111479, I've copied the description here:
I was asked to re-open this PR so that the impact of this breaking change can be evaluated (cc @goderbauer).
Pre-launch Checklist
///).