Unexpected values passed in to --gtest_filter command line option when using GTA with VSTest.Console.exe about googletestadapter HOT 3 OPEN

This is a rather clear description, and you might indeed be onto something here...

from googletestadapter.

I had a look into this, and afa I can see, the situation is more complicated. The thing is that to be able to figure out appropriate prefixes such that exactly the desired test cases are run, I need to know about all test cases contained in the respective executable. And that's the problem: GTA is called with two "contexts", i.e., with a set of executables (e.g. if you "Run all tests") or with a set of tests (e.g. if you run a single test), For the former, test discovery has to be performed on the provided executables, and that case would be just fine. However, for the latter I would have to start discovery for each involved executable before being able to run the given tests. This would make running a single test (or a selection of tests) quite a bit slower, I believe.

Now, I see three options:

• leave it as is (and live with the fact that tests might in some cases be run more than once)
• Perform test discovery even in the latter case (and live with the fact that selected tests are run with a slow delay)
• Do not use prefixes and wild cards at all, but "address" each test case separately when the arguments for Google Test are created
  The latter has the drawback that the length of the passed parameters is limited - GTA deals with this by splitting up test runs in case the limit is reached (which already happens now if necessary), and performing a separate test run for each split. This would still make sure that the correct subset of tests is run, but will add another kind of "overhead".

The best solution would maybe be to make this configurable. However, I'm a bit hesitant of that, since it's quite a bit of work for a corner case which apparently does not seem to happen very often... I will let you know.

from googletestadapter.

Yes, the "fix" I made in my PR was ignorant to basically every other use case other than the one I needed it for :). Hopefully it gave you a breadcrumb for triaging the problem though.

I had also thought that configurability would be the best option, but certainly the most work.

Thank you for looking into it and keeping me in the loop - much appreciated.

from googletestadapter.