How to Write Tests
Tests are Rust functions that verify that the non-test code is functioning in the expected manner. The bodies of test functions typically perform these three actions:
- Set up any needed data or state.
- Run the code you want to test.
- Assert that the results are what you expect.
Let’s look at the features Rust provides specifically for writing tests that
take these actions, which include the test
attribute, a few macros, and the
should_panic
attribute.
The Anatomy of a Test Function
At its simplest, a test in Rust is a function that’s annotated with the test
attribute. Attributes are metadata about pieces of Rust code; one example is
the derive
attribute we used with structs in Chapter 5. To change a function
into a test function, add #[test]
on the line before fn
. When you run your
tests with the cargo test
command, Rust builds a test runner binary that runs
the annotated functions and reports on whether each test function passes or
fails.
Whenever we make a new library project with Cargo, a test module with a test function in it is automatically generated for us. This module gives you a template for writing your tests so you don’t have to look up the exact structure and syntax every time you start a new project. You can add as many additional test functions and as many test modules as you want!
We’ll explore some aspects of how tests work by experimenting with the template test before we actually test any code. Then we’ll write some real-world tests that call some code that we’ve written and assert that its behavior is correct.
Let’s create a new library project called adder
that will add two numbers:
$ cargo new adder --lib
Created library `adder` project
$ cd adder
The contents of the src/lib.rs file in your adder
library should look like
Listing 11-1.
For now, let’s focus solely on the it_works
function. Note the #[test]
annotation: this attribute indicates this is a test function, so the test
runner knows to treat this function as a test. We might also have non-test
functions in the tests
module to help set up common scenarios or perform
common operations, so we always need to indicate which functions are tests.
The example function body uses the assert_eq!
macro to assert that result
,
which contains the result of adding 2 and 2, equals 4. This assertion serves as
an example of the format for a typical test. Let’s run it to see that this test
passes.
The cargo test
command runs all tests in our project, as shown in Listing
11-2.
Cargo compiled and ran the test. We see the line running 1 test
. The next
line shows the name of the generated test function, called tests::it_works
,
and that the result of running that test is ok
. The overall summary test result: ok.
means that all the tests passed, and the portion that reads 1 passed; 0 failed
totals the number of tests that passed or failed.
It’s possible to mark a test as ignored so it doesn’t run in a particular
instance; we’ll cover that in the “Ignoring Some Tests Unless Specifically
Requested” section later in this chapter. Because we
haven’t done that here, the summary shows 0 ignored
.
The 0 measured
statistic is for benchmark tests that measure performance.
Benchmark tests are, as of this writing, only available in nightly Rust. See
the documentation about benchmark tests to learn more.
We can pass an argument to the cargo test
command to run only tests whose
name matches a string; this is called filtering and we’ll cover that in the
“Running a Subset of Tests by Name” section. Here we
haven’t filtered the tests being run, so the end of the summary shows 0 filtered out
.
The next part of the test output starting at Doc-tests adder
is for the
results of any documentation tests. We don’t have any documentation tests yet,
but Rust can compile any code examples that appear in our API documentation.
This feature helps keep your docs and your code in sync! We’ll discuss how to
write documentation tests in the “Documentation Comments as
Tests” section of Chapter 14. For now, we’ll
ignore the Doc-tests
output.
Let’s start to customize the test to our own needs. First, change the name of
the it_works
function to a different name, such as exploration
, like so:
Filename: src/lib.rs
pub fn add(left: usize, right: usize) -> usize {
left + right
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn exploration() {
let result = add(2, 2);
assert_eq!(result, 4);
}
}
Then run cargo test
again. The output now shows exploration
instead of
it_works
:
$ cargo test
Compiling adder v0.1.0 (file:///projects/adder)
Finished `test` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.59s
Running unittests src/lib.rs (target/debug/deps/adder-92948b65e88960b4)
running 1 test
test tests::exploration ... ok
test result: ok. 1 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
Doc-tests adder
running 0 tests
test result: ok. 0 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
Now we’ll add another test, but this time we’ll make a test that fails! Tests
fail when something in the test function panics. Each test is run in a new
thread, and when the main thread sees that a test thread has died, the test is
marked as failed. In Chapter 9, we talked about how the simplest way to panic
is to call the panic!
macro. Enter the new test as a function named
another
, so your src/lib.rs file looks like Listing 11-3.
Run the tests again using cargo test
. The output should look like Listing
11-4, which shows that our exploration
test passed and another
failed.
Instead of ok
, the line test tests::another
shows FAILED
. Two new
sections appear between the individual results and the summary: the first
displays the detailed reason for each test failure. In this case, we get the
details that another
failed because it panicked at 'Make this test fail'
on
line 17 in the src/lib.rs file. The next section lists just the names of all
the failing tests, which is useful when there are lots of tests and lots of
detailed failing test output. We can use the name of a failing test to run just
that test to more easily debug it; we’ll talk more about ways to run tests in
the “Controlling How Tests Are Run” section.
The summary line displays at the end: overall, our test result is FAILED
. We
had one test pass and one test fail.
Now that you’ve seen what the test results look like in different scenarios,
let’s look at some macros other than panic!
that are useful in tests.
Checking Results with the assert!
Macro
The assert!
macro, provided by the standard library, is useful when you want
to ensure that some condition in a test evaluates to true
. We give the
assert!
macro an argument that evaluates to a Boolean. If the value is
true
, nothing happens and the test passes. If the value is false
, the
assert!
macro calls panic!
to cause the test to fail. Using the assert!
macro helps us check that our code is functioning in the way we intend.
In Chapter 5, Listing 5-15, we used a Rectangle
struct and a can_hold
method, which are repeated here in Listing 11-5. Let’s put this code in the
src/lib.rs file, then write some tests for it using the assert!
macro.
The can_hold
method returns a Boolean, which means it’s a perfect use case
for the assert!
macro. In Listing 11-6, we write a test that exercises the
can_hold
method by creating a Rectangle
instance that has a width of 8 and
a height of 7 and asserting that it can hold another Rectangle
instance that
has a width of 5 and a height of 1.
Note the use super::*;
line inside the tests
module. The tests
module is
a regular module that follows the usual visibility rules we covered in Chapter
7 in the “Paths for Referring to an Item in the Module
Tree”
section. Because the tests
module is an inner module, we need to bring the
code under test in the outer module into the scope of the inner module. We use
a glob here, so anything we define in the outer module is available to this
tests
module.
We’ve named our test larger_can_hold_smaller
, and we’ve created the two
Rectangle
instances that we need. Then we called the assert!
macro and
passed it the result of calling larger.can_hold(&smaller)
. This expression is
supposed to return true
, so our test should pass. Let’s find out!
$ cargo test
Compiling rectangle v0.1.0 (file:///projects/rectangle)
Finished `test` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.66s
Running unittests src/lib.rs (target/debug/deps/rectangle-6584c4561e48942e)
running 1 test
test tests::larger_can_hold_smaller ... ok
test result: ok. 1 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
Doc-tests rectangle
running 0 tests
test result: ok. 0 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
It does pass! Let’s add another test, this time asserting that a smaller rectangle cannot hold a larger rectangle:
Filename: src/lib.rs
#[derive(Debug)]
struct Rectangle {
width: u32,
height: u32,
}
impl Rectangle {
fn can_hold(&self, other: &Rectangle) -> bool {
self.width > other.width && self.height > other.height
}
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn larger_can_hold_smaller() {
// --snip--
let larger = Rectangle {
width: 8,
height: 7,
};
let smaller = Rectangle {
width: 5,
height: 1,
};
assert!(larger.can_hold(&smaller));
}
#[test]
fn smaller_cannot_hold_larger() {
let larger = Rectangle {
width: 8,
height: 7,
};
let smaller = Rectangle {
width: 5,
height: 1,
};
assert!(!smaller.can_hold(&larger));
}
}
Because the correct result of the can_hold
function in this case is false
,
we need to negate that result before we pass it to the assert!
macro. As a
result, our test will pass if can_hold
returns false
:
$ cargo test
Compiling rectangle v0.1.0 (file:///projects/rectangle)
Finished `test` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.66s
Running unittests src/lib.rs (target/debug/deps/rectangle-6584c4561e48942e)
running 2 tests
test tests::larger_can_hold_smaller ... ok
test tests::smaller_cannot_hold_larger ... ok
test result: ok. 2 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
Doc-tests rectangle
running 0 tests
test result: ok. 0 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
Two tests that pass! Now let’s see what happens to our test results when we
introduce a bug in our code. We’ll change the implementation of the can_hold
method by replacing the greater-than sign with a less-than sign when it
compares the widths:
#[derive(Debug)]
struct Rectangle {
width: u32,
height: u32,
}
// --snip--
impl Rectangle {
fn can_hold(&self, other: &Rectangle) -> bool {
self.width < other.width && self.height > other.height
}
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn larger_can_hold_smaller() {
let larger = Rectangle {
width: 8,
height: 7,
};
let smaller = Rectangle {
width: 5,
height: 1,
};
assert!(larger.can_hold(&smaller));
}
#[test]
fn smaller_cannot_hold_larger() {
let larger = Rectangle {
width: 8,
height: 7,
};
let smaller = Rectangle {
width: 5,
height: 1,
};
assert!(!smaller.can_hold(&larger));
}
}
Running the tests now produces the following:
$ cargo test
Compiling rectangle v0.1.0 (file:///projects/rectangle)
Finished `test` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.66s
Running unittests src/lib.rs (target/debug/deps/rectangle-6584c4561e48942e)
running 2 tests
test tests::larger_can_hold_smaller ... FAILED
test tests::smaller_cannot_hold_larger ... ok
failures:
---- tests::larger_can_hold_smaller stdout ----
thread 'tests::larger_can_hold_smaller' panicked at src/lib.rs:28:9:
assertion failed: larger.can_hold(&smaller)
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
failures:
tests::larger_can_hold_smaller
test result: FAILED. 1 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
error: test failed, to rerun pass `--lib`
Our tests caught the bug! Because larger.width
is 8
and smaller.width
is
5
, the comparison of the widths in can_hold
now returns false
: 8 is not
less than 5.
Testing Equality with the assert_eq!
and assert_ne!
Macros
A common way to verify functionality is to test for equality between the result
of the code under test and the value you expect the code to return. You could
do this by using the assert!
macro and passing it an expression using the
==
operator. However, this is such a common test that the standard library
provides a pair of macros—assert_eq!
and assert_ne!
—to perform this test
more conveniently. These macros compare two arguments for equality or
inequality, respectively. They’ll also print the two values if the assertion
fails, which makes it easier to see why the test failed; conversely, the
assert!
macro only indicates that it got a false
value for the ==
expression, without printing the values that led to the false
value.
In Listing 11-7, we write a function named add_two
that adds 2
to its
parameter, then we test this function using the assert_eq!
macro.
Let’s check that it passes!
$ cargo test
Compiling adder v0.1.0 (file:///projects/adder)
Finished `test` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.58s
Running unittests src/lib.rs (target/debug/deps/adder-92948b65e88960b4)
running 1 test
test tests::it_adds_two ... ok
test result: ok. 1 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
Doc-tests adder
running 0 tests
test result: ok. 0 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
We create a variable named result
that holds the result of calling
add_two(2)
. Then we pass result
and 4
as the arguments to assert_eq!
.
The output line for this test is test tests::it_adds_two ... ok
, and the ok
text indicates that our test passed!
Let’s introduce a bug into our code to see what assert_eq!
looks like when it
fails. Change the implementation of the add_two
function to instead add 3
:
pub fn add_two(a: usize) -> usize {
a + 3
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn it_adds_two() {
let result = add_two(2);
assert_eq!(result, 4);
}
}
Run the tests again:
$ cargo test
Compiling adder v0.1.0 (file:///projects/adder)
Finished `test` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.61s
Running unittests src/lib.rs (target/debug/deps/adder-92948b65e88960b4)
running 1 test
test tests::it_adds_two ... FAILED
failures:
---- tests::it_adds_two stdout ----
thread 'tests::it_adds_two' panicked at src/lib.rs:12:9:
assertion `left == right` failed
left: 5
right: 4
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
failures:
tests::it_adds_two
test result: FAILED. 0 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
error: test failed, to rerun pass `--lib`
Our test caught the bug! The it_adds_two
test failed, and the message tells
us assertion `left == right` failed
and what the left
and right
values
are. This message helps us start debugging: the left
argument, where we had
the result of calling add_two(2)
, was 5
but the right
argument was 4
.
You can imagine that this would be especially helpful when we have a lot of
tests going on.
Note that in some languages and test frameworks, the parameters to equality
assertion functions are called expected
and actual
, and the order in which
we specify the arguments matters. However, in Rust, they’re called left
and
right
, and the order in which we specify the value we expect and the value
the code produces doesn’t matter. We could write the assertion in this test as
assert_eq!(4, result)
, which would produce the same failure message
that displays assertion failed: `(left == right)`
.
The assert_ne!
macro will pass if the two values we give it are not equal and
fail if they’re equal. This macro is most useful for cases when we’re not sure
what a value will be, but we know what the value definitely shouldn’t be.
For example, if we’re testing a function that is guaranteed to change its input
in some way, but the way in which the input is changed depends on the day of
the week that we run our tests, the best thing to assert might be that the
output of the function is not equal to the input.
Under the surface, the assert_eq!
and assert_ne!
macros use the operators
==
and !=
, respectively. When the assertions fail, these macros print their
arguments using debug formatting, which means the values being compared must
implement the PartialEq
and Debug
traits. All primitive types and most of
the standard library types implement these traits. For structs and enums that
you define yourself, you’ll need to implement PartialEq
to assert equality of
those types. You’ll also need to implement Debug
to print the values when the
assertion fails. Because both traits are derivable traits, as mentioned in
Listing 5-12 in Chapter 5, this is usually as straightforward as adding the
#[derive(PartialEq, Debug)]
annotation to your struct or enum definition. See
Appendix C, “Derivable Traits,” for more
details about these and other derivable traits.
Adding Custom Failure Messages
You can also add a custom message to be printed with the failure message as
optional arguments to the assert!
, assert_eq!
, and assert_ne!
macros. Any
arguments specified after the required arguments are passed along to the
format!
macro (discussed in Chapter 8 in the “Concatenation with the +
Operator or the format!
Macro”
section), so you can pass a format string that contains {}
placeholders and
values to go in those placeholders. Custom messages are useful for documenting
what an assertion means; when a test fails, you’ll have a better idea of what
the problem is with the code.
For example, let’s say we have a function that greets people by name and we want to test that the name we pass into the function appears in the output:
Filename: src/lib.rs
pub fn greeting(name: &str) -> String {
format!("Hello {name}!")
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn greeting_contains_name() {
let result = greeting("Carol");
assert!(result.contains("Carol"));
}
}
The requirements for this program haven’t been agreed upon yet, and we’re
pretty sure the Hello
text at the beginning of the greeting will change. We
decided we don’t want to have to update the test when the requirements change,
so instead of checking for exact equality to the value returned from the
greeting
function, we’ll just assert that the output contains the text of the
input parameter.
Now let’s introduce a bug into this code by changing greeting
to exclude
name
to see what the default test failure looks like:
pub fn greeting(name: &str) -> String {
String::from("Hello!")
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn greeting_contains_name() {
let result = greeting("Carol");
assert!(result.contains("Carol"));
}
}
Running this test produces the following:
$ cargo test
Compiling greeter v0.1.0 (file:///projects/greeter)
Finished `test` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.91s
Running unittests src/lib.rs (target/debug/deps/greeter-170b942eb5bf5e3a)
running 1 test
test tests::greeting_contains_name ... FAILED
failures:
---- tests::greeting_contains_name stdout ----
thread 'tests::greeting_contains_name' panicked at src/lib.rs:12:9:
assertion failed: result.contains("Carol")
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
failures:
tests::greeting_contains_name
test result: FAILED. 0 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
error: test failed, to rerun pass `--lib`
This result just indicates that the assertion failed and which line the
assertion is on. A more useful failure message would print the value from the
greeting
function. Let’s add a custom failure message composed of a format
string with a placeholder filled in with the actual value we got from the
greeting
function:
pub fn greeting(name: &str) -> String {
String::from("Hello!")
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn greeting_contains_name() {
let result = greeting("Carol");
assert!(
result.contains("Carol"),
"Greeting did not contain name, value was `{result}`"
);
}
}
Now when we run the test, we’ll get a more informative error message:
$ cargo test
Compiling greeter v0.1.0 (file:///projects/greeter)
Finished `test` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.93s
Running unittests src/lib.rs (target/debug/deps/greeter-170b942eb5bf5e3a)
running 1 test
test tests::greeting_contains_name ... FAILED
failures:
---- tests::greeting_contains_name stdout ----
thread 'tests::greeting_contains_name' panicked at src/lib.rs:12:9:
Greeting did not contain name, value was `Hello!`
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
failures:
tests::greeting_contains_name
test result: FAILED. 0 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
error: test failed, to rerun pass `--lib`
We can see the value we actually got in the test output, which would help us debug what happened instead of what we were expecting to happen.
Checking for Panics with should_panic
In addition to checking return values, it’s important to check that our code
handles error conditions as we expect. For example, consider the Guess
type
that we created in Chapter 9, Listing 9-13. Other code that uses Guess
depends on the guarantee that Guess
instances will contain only values
between 1 and 100. We can write a test that ensures that attempting to create a
Guess
instance with a value outside that range panics.
We do this by adding the attribute should_panic
to our test function. The
test passes if the code inside the function panics; the test fails if the code
inside the function doesn’t panic.
Listing 11-8 shows a test that checks that the error conditions of Guess::new
happen when we expect them to.
We place the #[should_panic]
attribute after the #[test]
attribute and
before the test function it applies to. Let’s look at the result when this test
passes:
$ cargo test
Compiling guessing_game v0.1.0 (file:///projects/guessing_game)
Finished `test` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.58s
Running unittests src/lib.rs (target/debug/deps/guessing_game-57d70c3acb738f4d)
running 1 test
test tests::greater_than_100 - should panic ... ok
test result: ok. 1 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
Doc-tests guessing_game
running 0 tests
test result: ok. 0 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
Looks good! Now let’s introduce a bug in our code by removing the condition
that the new
function will panic if the value is greater than 100:
pub struct Guess {
value: i32,
}
// --snip--
impl Guess {
pub fn new(value: i32) -> Guess {
if value < 1 {
panic!("Guess value must be between 1 and 100, got {value}.");
}
Guess { value }
}
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
#[should_panic]
fn greater_than_100() {
Guess::new(200);
}
}
When we run the test in Listing 11-8, it will fail:
$ cargo test
Compiling guessing_game v0.1.0 (file:///projects/guessing_game)
Finished `test` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.62s
Running unittests src/lib.rs (target/debug/deps/guessing_game-57d70c3acb738f4d)
running 1 test
test tests::greater_than_100 - should panic ... FAILED
failures:
---- tests::greater_than_100 stdout ----
note: test did not panic as expected
failures:
tests::greater_than_100
test result: FAILED. 0 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
error: test failed, to rerun pass `--lib`
We don’t get a very helpful message in this case, but when we look at the test
function, we see that it’s annotated with #[should_panic]
. The failure we got
means that the code in the test function did not cause a panic.
Tests that use should_panic
can be imprecise. A should_panic
test would
pass even if the test panics for a different reason from the one we were
expecting. To make should_panic
tests more precise, we can add an optional
expected
parameter to the should_panic
attribute. The test harness will
make sure that the failure message contains the provided text. For example,
consider the modified code for Guess
in Listing 11-9 where the new
function
panics with different messages depending on whether the value is too small or
too large.
This test will pass because the value we put in the should_panic
attribute’s
expected
parameter is a substring of the message that the Guess::new
function panics with. We could have specified the entire panic message that we
expect, which in this case would be Guess value must be less than or equal to 100, got 200
. What you choose to specify depends on how much of the panic
message is unique or dynamic and how precise you want your test to be. In this
case, a substring of the panic message is enough to ensure that the code in the
test function executes the else if value > 100
case.
To see what happens when a should_panic
test with an expected
message
fails, let’s again introduce a bug into our code by swapping the bodies of the
if value < 1
and the else if value > 100
blocks:
pub struct Guess {
value: i32,
}
impl Guess {
pub fn new(value: i32) -> Guess {
if value < 1 {
panic!(
"Guess value must be less than or equal to 100, got {value}."
);
} else if value > 100 {
panic!(
"Guess value must be greater than or equal to 1, got {value}."
);
}
Guess { value }
}
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
#[should_panic(expected = "less than or equal to 100")]
fn greater_than_100() {
Guess::new(200);
}
}
This time when we run the should_panic
test, it will fail:
$ cargo test
Compiling guessing_game v0.1.0 (file:///projects/guessing_game)
Finished `test` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.66s
Running unittests src/lib.rs (target/debug/deps/guessing_game-57d70c3acb738f4d)
running 1 test
test tests::greater_than_100 - should panic ... FAILED
failures:
---- tests::greater_than_100 stdout ----
thread 'tests::greater_than_100' panicked at src/lib.rs:12:13:
Guess value must be greater than or equal to 1, got 200.
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
note: panic did not contain expected string
panic message: `"Guess value must be greater than or equal to 1, got 200."`,
expected substring: `"less than or equal to 100"`
failures:
tests::greater_than_100
test result: FAILED. 0 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 0.00s
error: test failed, to rerun pass `--lib`
The failure message indicates that this test did indeed panic as we expected,
but the panic message did not include the expected string less than or equal to 100
. The panic message that we did get in this case was Guess value must be greater than or equal to 1, got 200.
Now we can start figuring out where
our bug is!
Using Result<T, E>
in Tests
Our tests so far all panic when they fail. We can also write tests that use
Result<T, E>
! Here’s the test from Listing 11-1, rewritten to use Result<T, E>
and return an Err
instead of panicking:
pub fn add(left: usize, right: usize) -> usize {
left + right
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn it_works() -> Result<(), String> {
let result = add(2, 2);
if result == 4 {
Ok(())
} else {
Err(String::from("two plus two does not equal four"))
}
}
}
The it_works
function now has the Result<(), String>
return type. In the
body of the function, rather than calling the assert_eq!
macro, we return
Ok(())
when the test passes and an Err
with a String
inside when the test
fails.
Writing tests so they return a Result<T, E>
enables you to use the question
mark operator in the body of tests, which can be a convenient way to write
tests that should fail if any operation within them returns an Err
variant.
You can’t use the #[should_panic]
annotation on tests that use Result<T, E>
. To assert that an operation returns an Err
variant, don’t use the
question mark operator on the Result<T, E>
value. Instead, use
assert!(value.is_err())
.
Now that you know several ways to write tests, let’s look at what is happening
when we run our tests and explore the different options we can use with cargo test
.