gocheck: add -gocheck.list flag

https://code.launchpad.net/~rogpeppe/gocheck/add-list-flag/+merge/94937

(do not edit description out of merge proposal)

[rog, 2012-02-28 11:05:19]

Please take a look.

[niemeyer, 2012-02-28 13:46:35]

Please separate the two changes. We can't modify .f before the next announced
release.

[rog, 2012-02-28 13:56:12]

Please take a look.

[niemeyer, 2012-02-28 14:17:27]

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/gocheck.go
File gocheck.go (left):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/gocheck.go#oldcode554
gocheck.go:554: filterRegexp.MatchString(suiteName+"."+testName))
We can't change the behavior of .f before the next announced release.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run.go
File run.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run.go#newcode28
run.go:28: "Regular expression selecting what to run (use -gocheck.list to see
what this matches against)")
Please revert this. -gocheck.list is documented below already.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run_test.go
File run_test.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run_test.go#newcode296
run_test.go:296: "*gocheck_test.FixtureHelper.Test2",
What is this "*" doing there?

[rog, 2012-02-28 14:37:20]

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/gocheck.go
File gocheck.go (left):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/gocheck.go#oldcode554
gocheck.go:554: filterRegexp.MatchString(suiteName+"."+testName))
On 2012/02/28 14:17:27, niemeyer wrote:
> We can't change the behavior of .f before the next announced release.

FWIW the new behaviour is exactly the old behaviour if the user doesn't use ^ or
$ in their regexp. none of the tests needed to change, which is a useful
indicator.

i'll revert nonetheless.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run.go
File run.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run.go#newcode28
run.go:28: "Regular expression selecting what to run (use -gocheck.list to see
what this matches against)")
On 2012/02/28 14:17:27, niemeyer wrote:
> Please revert this. -gocheck.list is documented below already.

AFAIK the text that the regexp matches is not documented anywhere (for instance
i didn't know that you could filter on a suite name until i read the source
code). if this isn't a reasonable place to document the behaviour, perhaps you
could suggest another.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run_test.go
File run_test.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run_test.go#newcode296
run_test.go:296: "*gocheck_test.FixtureHelper.Test2",
On 2012/02/28 14:17:27, niemeyer wrote:
> What is this "*" doing there?

the method is on a pointer type. i've found this info useful in the past.
perhaps it shouldn't be indicated though.

[niemeyer, 2012-02-28 14:45:02]

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/gocheck.go
File gocheck.go (left):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/gocheck.go#oldcode554
gocheck.go:554: filterRegexp.MatchString(suiteName+"."+testName))
On 2012/02/28 14:37:20, rog wrote:
> On 2012/02/28 14:17:27, niemeyer wrote:
> > We can't change the behavior of .f before the next announced release.
> 
> FWIW the new behaviour is exactly the old behaviour if the user doesn't use ^
or
> $ in their regexp. none of the tests needed to change, which is a useful
> indicator.
> 
> i'll revert nonetheless.

The new behavior is exactly the old behavior except when it's not.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run.go
File run.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run.go#newcode28
run.go:28: "Regular expression selecting what to run (use -gocheck.list to see
what this matches against)")
On 2012/02/28 14:37:20, rog wrote:
> On 2012/02/28 14:17:27, niemeyer wrote:
> > Please revert this. -gocheck.list is documented below already.
> 
> AFAIK the text that the regexp matches is not documented anywhere (for
instance
> i didn't know that you could filter on a suite name until i read the source
> code). if this isn't a reasonable place to document the behaviour, perhaps you
> could suggest another.

Documenting the -gocheck.list option twice isn't a good way to do what you want.
You can say something like:

"Regular expression selecting which test and/or suite to run"

Also, when you see a test name in a verbose run or on a failure, that format
works, so it's not like it's entirely magical.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run_test.go
File run_test.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run_test.go#newcode296
run_test.go:296: "*gocheck_test.FixtureHelper.Test2",
On 2012/02/28 14:37:20, rog wrote:
> On 2012/02/28 14:17:27, niemeyer wrote:
> > What is this "*" doing there?
> 
> the method is on a pointer type. i've found this info useful in the past.
> perhaps it shouldn't be indicated though.

Yeah, not relevant here.

[rog, 2012-02-28 15:14:49]

Please take a look.

[rog, 2012-02-28 15:14:58]

PTAL

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/gocheck.go
File gocheck.go (left):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/gocheck.go#oldcode554
gocheck.go:554: filterRegexp.MatchString(suiteName+"."+testName))
On 2012/02/28 14:45:03, niemeyer wrote:
> On 2012/02/28 14:37:20, rog wrote:
> > On 2012/02/28 14:17:27, niemeyer wrote:
> > > We can't change the behavior of .f before the next announced release.
> > 
> > FWIW the new behaviour is exactly the old behaviour if the user doesn't use
^
> or
> > $ in their regexp. none of the tests needed to change, which is a useful
> > indicator.
> > 
> > i'll revert nonetheless.
> 
> The new behavior is exactly the old behavior except when it's not.

i've reverted to the old behaviour, but left the implementation similar to this,
so that the simplification can be made easily later.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run.go
File run.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run.go#newcode28
run.go:28: "Regular expression selecting what to run (use -gocheck.list to see
what this matches against)")
On 2012/02/28 14:45:03, niemeyer wrote:
> On 2012/02/28 14:37:20, rog wrote:
> > On 2012/02/28 14:17:27, niemeyer wrote:
> > > Please revert this. -gocheck.list is documented below already.
> > 
> > AFAIK the text that the regexp matches is not documented anywhere (for
> instance
> > i didn't know that you could filter on a suite name until i read the source
> > code). if this isn't a reasonable place to document the behaviour, perhaps
you
> > could suggest another.
> 
> Documenting the -gocheck.list option twice isn't a good way to do what you
want.

that wasn't what i was trying to do. i was trying to document that the gocheck.f
flag matches against the text produced by list, not what list does.

i like the idea that {go test -gocheck.list | grep pat} will print exactly the
same tests that {go test -gocheck.f pat} will run.

> You can say something like:
> 
> "Regular expression selecting which test and/or suite to run"
> 
> Also, when you see a test name in a verbose run or on a failure, that format
> works, so it's not like it's entirely magical.

the fact that it tries the regexp against three pieces of text was unexpected to
me. i hope that you think it's a reasonable idea in the future to standardise on
a single form of text to match against - easier to document and to use IMHO.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run_test.go
File run_test.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5705044/diff/2002/run_test.go#newcode296
run_test.go:296: "*gocheck_test.FixtureHelper.Test2",
On 2012/02/28 14:45:03, niemeyer wrote:
> On 2012/02/28 14:37:20, rog wrote:
> > On 2012/02/28 14:17:27, niemeyer wrote:
> > > What is this "*" doing there?
> > 
> > the method is on a pointer type. i've found this info useful in the past.
> > perhaps it shouldn't be indicated though.
> 
> Yeah, not relevant here.

Done.

[rog, 2012-03-14 14:23:12]

Please take a look.

[niemeyer, 2013-03-01 22:40:03]

LGTM.. I'm merging this with tip and integrating.