👋 hey all - working on adding to an existing console rule (

test

- adding an option to run within an interactive session) and am running into couple hiccups. Notably: • How to best mock out options being passed to a rule (using the

run_rule

test util, I didn’t catch anything in / after Erics change in https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/pull/8742 that served as an example) • How to best constrain the rule to a single BFA when the option is provided (following https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/pull/8586 it seems I could do this via specs, wasn’t sure if there was something more elegant)

For options, check the black tests to see how I constructed the options for a rule. I think that should work

I’ll look back at the black tests - iirc it doesn’t use the

run_rule

test helper

No, it doesn’t, but I believe constructing the option is the same

Unless I’m missing something, there’s no option(s) passed in the

fmt

rule (or tests), and I wasn’t able to find any other rules that took options that were under tests. Failure on current tests looks like:

ValueError: Rule expected to receive arguments of the form: (<class 'pants.engine.console.Console'>, <class 'pants.rules.core.test.TestOptions'>, pants.engine.addressable.BuildFileAddresses); got: [<pants.testutil.engine.util.MockConsole object at 0x112cdaa58>, (BuildFileAddress(some/target/BUILD, target),)]

So while the rule can fetch the options, it seems the

run_rule

helper can’t do the same (ie. can’t mock out a

Get

for the goal options). Using a simple

Mock

(for options) looks promising, currently swimming in errors around missing `MockGet`s - appreciate the insights / feedback in the meantime.

I’m on a bus and can’t look closely but we pass an option in the black tests for a config file and for

args

Ah, found it - looks like an integration test, thanks I’ll continue to dig