@Michael Davidovich we'd generally set ^UnitTestRoot to the path in the cloned repo and then run tests right from there. Another workflow might be to have unit tests run in their own namespace that has all the same code/supporting data but is distinct from the namespace where you're doing dev work - in that case, it's safe to delete the unit tests from that second namespace. (But practically speaking we just use one namespace and don't delete.)
Re: best practices/shortcuts as an individual developer, I'd honestly just say embrace the automation and iterate in a feature branch with the tests running on commit to feature branches (not just main). It also helps to use the package manager to make a more modular codebase where each module has its own associated tests, so you're not rebuilding and testing everything every time.
In a case where you're (a) using the package manager and (b) being really strict about test coverage, combining the techniques in the article I linked earlier is a good approach - e.g., saying to run specific tests *and* measure test coverage. That helps answer "how well do the tests I'm currently writing cover the code I'm currently adding/changing?"
Of course, you can do this with the normal APIs for running unit tests with test coverage too. (TestCoverage.Manager also has DebugRunTestCase - think of it like %UnitTest.Manager but with test coverage built in.)
@Michael Davidovich - @Pravin Barton is from my team, so I have little to add to what he said - other than to also point to https://community.intersystems.com/post/unit-tests-and-test-coverage-obj.... If you're using InterSystems' package manager it makes tests much easier/more natural to run.
WARNING! When you implement this (using %CSP.StreamServer or whatever), make sure that you're not opening up a way for a malicious user to download any arbitrary file on the server.
Log in or create a new account to continue