How to Write Tests
Tests are Rust functions that verify non-test code is functioning in the
program in the expected manner. The bodies of test functions typically contain
some setup, running the code we want to test, then asserting that the results
are what we expect. Let's look at the features Rust provides specifically for
writing tests: 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: the derive
attribute that we used with structs in Chapter 5 is one example. To make a
function into a test function, we add #[test] on the line before fn. When
we run our tests with the cargo test command, Rust will build a test runner
binary that runs the functions annotated with the test attribute and reports
on whether each test function passes or fails.
We saw in Chapter 7 that when you make a new library project with Cargo, a test module with a test function in it is automatically generated for us. This is to help us get started writing our tests, since we don't have to go look up the exact structure and syntax of test functions every time we start a new project. We can add as many additional test functions and as many test modules as we want, though!
We're going to explore some aspects of how tests work by experimenting with the template test generated for us, without actually testing 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:
$ cargo new adder
Created library `adder` project
$ cd adder
The contents of the src/lib.rs file in your adder library should be as
follows:
Filename: src/lib.rs
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
#[test]
fn it_works() {
}
}
Listing 11-1: The test module and function generated
automatically for us by cargo new
For now, let's ignore the top two lines and focus on the function to see how it
works. Note the #[test] annotation before the fn line: this attribute
indicates this is a test function, so that the test runner knows to treat this
function as a test. We could also have non-test functions in the tests module
to help set up common scenarios or perform common operations, so we need to
indicate which functions are tests with the #[test] attribute.
The function currently has no body, which means there is no code to fail the test; an empty test is a passing test! Let's run it and see that this test passes.
The cargo test command runs all tests we have in our project, as shown in
Listing 11-2:
$ cargo test
Compiling adder v0.1.0 (file:///projects/adder)
Finished debug [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.22 secs
Running target/debug/deps/adder-ce99bcc2479f4607
running 1 test
test tests::it_works ... ok
test result: ok. 1 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured
Doc-tests adder
running 0 tests
test result: ok. 0 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured
Listing 11-2: The output from running the one automatically generated test
Cargo compiled and ran our test. After the Compiling, Finished, and
Running lines, we see the line running 1 test. The next line shows the name
of the generated test function, called it_works, and the result of running
that test, ok. Then we see the overall summary of running the tests: test
result: ok. means all the tests passed. 1 passed; 0 failed adds up the
number of tests that passed or failed.
We don't have any tests we've marked as ignored, so the summary says 0
ignored. We're going to talk about ignoring tests in the next section on
different ways to run tests. The 0 measured statistic is for benchmark tests
that measure performance. Benchmark tests are, as of this writing, only
available in nightly Rust. See Appendix D for more information about nightly
Rust.
The next part of the test output that starts with 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 us keep our docs and our code in sync! We'll be talking
about how to write documentation tests in the "Documentation Comments" section
of Chapter 14. We're going to ignore the Doc-tests output for now.
Let's change the name of our test and see how that changes the test output.
Give the it_works function a different name, such as exploration, like so:
Filename: src/lib.rs
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
#[test]
fn exploration() {
}
}
And run cargo test again. In the output, we'll now see exploration instead
of it_works:
running 1 test
test tests::exploration ... ok
test result: ok. 1 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured
Let's add another test, but this time we'll make a test that fails! Tests fail
when something in the test function panics. We talked about the simplest way to
cause a panic in Chapter 9: call the panic! macro! Type in the new test so
that your src/lib.rs now looks like Listing 11-3:
Filename: src/lib.rs
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
#[test]
fn exploration() {
}
#[test]
fn another() {
panic!("Make this test fail");
}
}
Listing 11-3: Adding a second test; one that will fail
since we call the panic! macro
And run the tests again with cargo test. The output should look like Listing
11-4, which shows that our exploration test passed and another failed:
running 2 tests
test tests::exploration ... ok
test tests::another ... FAILED
failures:
---- tests::another stdout ----
thread 'tests::another' panicked at 'Make this test fail', src/lib.rs:9
note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` for a backtrace.
failures:
tests::another
test result: FAILED. 1 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured
error: test failed
Listing 11-4: Test results when one test passes and one test fails
Instead of ok, the line test tests::another says FAILED. We have two new
sections between the individual results and the summary: the first section
displays the detailed reason for the test failures. In this case, another
failed because it panicked at 'Make this test fail', which happened on
src/lib.rs line 9. 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 in order to more easily debug it; we'll talk more about ways to run tests
in the next section.
Finally, we have the summary line: overall, our test result is FAILED. We had
1 test pass and 1 test fail.
Now that we'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,
assert! does nothing and the test passes. If the value is false, assert!
calls the panic! macro, which causes the test to fail. This is one macro that
helps us check that our code is functioning in the way we intend.
Remember all the way back in Chapter 5, Listing 5-9, where we had a Rectangle
struct and a can_hold method, repeated here in Listing 11-5. Let's put this
code in src/lib.rs instead of src/main.rs and write some tests for it using
the assert! macro.
Filename: src/lib.rs
#[derive(Debug)]
pub struct Rectangle {
length: u32,
width: u32,
}
impl Rectangle {
pub fn can_hold(&self, other: &Rectangle) -> bool {
self.length > other.length && self.width > other.width
}
}
Listing 11-5: The Rectangle struct and its can_hold
method from Chapter 5
The can_hold method returns a boolean, which means it's a perfect use case
for the assert! macro. In Listing 11-6, let's write a test that exercises the
can_hold method by creating a Rectangle instance that has a length of 8 and
a width of 7, and asserting that it can hold another Rectangle instance that
has a length of 5 and a width of 1:
Filename: src/lib.rs
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn larger_can_hold_smaller() {
let larger = Rectangle { length: 8, width: 7 };
let smaller = Rectangle { length: 5, width: 1 };
assert!(larger.can_hold(&smaller));
}
}
Listing 11-6: A test for can_hold that checks that a
larger rectangle indeed holds a smaller rectangle
Note that we've added a new line inside the tests module: use super::*;.
The tests module is a regular module that follows the usual visibility rules
we covered in Chapter 7. Because we're in an inner module, we need to bring the
code under test in the outer module into the scope of the inner module. We've
chosen to use a glob here so that 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!
running 1 test
test tests::larger_can_hold_smaller ... ok
test result: ok. 1 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured
It does pass! Let's add another test, this time asserting that a smaller rectangle cannot hold a larger rectangle:
Filename: src/lib.rs
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn larger_can_hold_smaller() {
let larger = Rectangle { length: 8, width: 7 };
let smaller = Rectangle { length: 5, width: 1 };
assert!(larger.can_hold(&smaller));
}
#[test]
fn smaller_can_hold_larger() {
let larger = Rectangle { length: 8, width: 7 };
let smaller = Rectangle { length: 5, width: 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. This
way, our test will pass if can_hold returns false:
running 2 tests
test tests::smaller_can_hold_larger ... ok
test tests::larger_can_hold_smaller ... ok
test result: ok. 2 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured
Two passing tests! Now let's see what happens to our test results if we
introduce a bug in our code. Let's change the implementation of the can_hold
method to have a less-than sign when it compares the lengths where it's
supposed to have a greater-than sign:
#[derive(Debug)]
pub struct Rectangle {
length: u32,
width: u32,
}
impl Rectangle {
pub fn can_hold(&self, other: &Rectangle) -> bool {
self.length < other.length && self.width > other.width
}
}
Running the tests now produces:
running 2 tests
test tests::smaller_can_hold_larger ... ok
test tests::larger_can_hold_smaller ... FAILED
failures:
---- tests::larger_can_hold_smaller stdout ----
thread 'tests::larger_can_hold_smaller' panicked at 'assertion failed:
larger.can_hold(&smaller)', src/lib.rs:22
note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` for a backtrace.
failures:
tests::larger_can_hold_smaller
test result: FAILED. 1 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured
Our tests caught the bug! Since larger.length is 8 and smaller.length is 5,
the comparison of the lengths in can_hold now returns false since 8 is not
less than 5.
Testing Equality with the assert_eq! and assert_ne! Macros
A common way to test functionality is to take the result of the code under test
and the value we expect the code to return and check that they're equal. We
could do this 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 to perform this test more conveniently: assert_eq!
and assert_ne!. These macros compare two arguments for equality or
inequality, respectively. They'll also print out the two values if the
assertion fails, so that it's easier to see why the test failed, while the
assert! macro only tells us that it got a false value for the ==
expression, not the values that lead to the false value.
In Listing 11-7, let's write a function named add_two that adds two to its
parameter and returns the result. Then let's test this function using the
assert_eq! macro:
Filename: src/lib.rs
pub fn add_two(a: i32) -> i32 {
a + 2
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn it_adds_two() {
assert_eq!(4, add_two(2));
}
}
Listing 11-7: Testing the function add_two using the
assert_eq! macro
Let's check that it passes!
running 1 test
test tests::it_adds_two ... ok
test result: ok. 1 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured
The first argument we gave to the assert_eq! macro, 4, is equal to the result
of calling add_two(2). We see a line for this test that says 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 it looks like when a test that
uses assert_eq! fails. Change the implementation of the add_two function to
instead add 3:
pub fn add_two(a: i32) -> i32 {
a + 3
}
And run the tests again:
running 1 test
test tests::it_adds_two ... FAILED
failures:
---- tests::it_adds_two stdout ----
thread 'tests::it_adds_two' panicked at 'assertion failed: `(left ==
right)` (left: `4`, right: `5`)', src/lib.rs:11
note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` for a backtrace.
failures:
tests::it_adds_two
test result: FAILED. 0 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured
Our test caught the bug! The it_adds_two test failed with the message assertion failed: `(left == right)` (left: `4`, right: `5`). This message is
useful and helps us get started debugging: it says the left argument to
assert_eq! was 4, but the right argument, where we had add_two(2), was 5.
Note that in some languages and test frameworks, the parameters to the
functions that assert two values are equal are called expected and actual
and the order in which we specify the arguments matters. However, in Rust,
they're called left and right instead, and the order in which we specify
the value we expect and the value that the code under test produces doesn't
matter. We could have written the assertion in this test as
assert_eq!(add_two(2), 4), which would result in a failure message that says
assertion failed: `(left == right)` (left: `5`, right: `4`).
The assert_ne! macro will pass if the two values we give to it are not equal
and fail if they are equal. This macro is most useful for cases when we're not
sure exactly what a value will be, but we know what the value definitely
won't be, if our code is functioning as we intend. For example, if we have 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 of the primitive types and
most of the standard library types implement these traits. For structs and
enums that you define, you'll need to implement PartialEq in order to be able
to assert that values of those types are equal or not equal. You'll need to
implement Debug in order to be able to print out the values in the case that
the assertion fails. Because both of these traits are derivable traits, as we
mentioned in Chapter 5, this is usually as straightforward as adding the
#[derive(PartialEq, Debug)] annotation to your struct or enum definition. See
Appendix C for more details about these and other derivable traits.
Custom Failure Messages
We can also add a custom message to be printed with the failure message as
optional arguments to assert!, assert_eq!, and assert_ne!. Any arguments
specified after the one required argument to assert! or the two required
arguments to assert_eq! and assert_ne! are passed along to the format!
macro that we talked about in Chapter 8, so you can pass a format string that
contains {} placeholders and values to go in the placeholders. Custom
messages are useful in order to document what an assertion means, so that when
the test fails, we 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 for the name when that
happens, so instead of checking for exact equality to the value returned from
the greeting function, we're just going to assert that the output contains
the text of the input parameter.
Let's introduce a bug into this code to see what this test failure looks like,
by changing greeting to not include name:
pub fn greeting(name: &str) -> String {
String::from("Hello!")
}
Running this test produces:
running 1 test
test tests::greeting_contains_name ... FAILED
failures:
---- tests::greeting_contains_name stdout ----
thread 'tests::greeting_contains_name' panicked at 'assertion failed:
result.contains("Carol")', src/lib.rs:12
note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` for a backtrace.
failures:
tests::greeting_contains_name
This just tells us that the assertion failed and which line the assertion is
on. A more useful failure message in this case would print the value we did get
from the greeting function. Let's change the test function to have a custom
failure message made from a format string with a placeholder filled in with the
actual value we got from the greeting function:
#[test]
fn greeting_contains_name() {
let result = greeting("Carol");
assert!(
result.contains("Carol"),
"Greeting did not contain name, value was `{}`", result
);
}
Now if we run the test again, we'll get a much more informative error message:
---- tests::greeting_contains_name stdout ----
thread 'tests::greeting_contains_name' panicked at 'Result did not contain
name, value was `Hello`', src/lib.rs:12
note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` for a backtrace.
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 that our code returns the correct values we expect,
it's also important to check that our code handles error conditions as we
expect. For example, consider the Guess type that we created in Chapter 9 in
Listing 9-8. Other code that uses Guess is depending on the guarantee that
Guess instances will only contain 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 can do this by adding another attribute, should_panic, to our test
function. This attribute makes a test pass if the code inside the function
panics, and the test will fail if the code inside the function does non panic.
Listing 11-8 shows how we'd write a test that checks the error conditions of
Guess::new happen when we expect:
Filename: src/lib.rs
struct Guess {
value: u32,
}
impl Guess {
pub fn new(value: u32) -> Guess {
if value < 1 || value > 100 {
panic!("Guess value must be between 1 and 100, got {}.", value);
}
Guess {
value: value,
}
}
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
#[should_panic]
fn greater_than_100() {
Guess::new(200);
}
}
Listing 11-8: Testing that a condition will cause a
panic!
The #[should_panic] attribute goes after the #[test] attribute and before
the test function it applies to. Let's see what it looks like when this test
passes:
running 1 test
test tests::greater_than_100 ... ok
test result: ok. 1 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured
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:
# struct Guess {
# value: u32,
# }
#
impl Guess {
pub fn new(value: u32) -> Guess {
if value < 1 {
panic!("Guess value must be between 1 and 100, got {}.", value);
}
Guess {
value: value,
}
}
}
If we run the test from Listing 11-8, it will fail:
running 1 test
test tests::greater_than_100 ... FAILED
failures:
failures:
tests::greater_than_100
test result: FAILED. 0 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured
We don't get a very helpful message in this case, but once we look at the test
function, we can see that it's annotated with #[should_panic]. The failure we
got means that the code in the function, Guess::new(200), did not cause a
panic.
should_panic tests can be imprecise, however, because they only tell us that
the code has caused some panic. A should_panic test would pass even if the
test panics for a different reason than the one we were expecting to happen. 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 was too small or too large:
Filename: src/lib.rs
struct Guess {
value: u32,
}
impl Guess {
pub fn new(value: u32) -> Guess {
if value < 1 {
panic!("Guess value must be greater than or equal to 1, got {}.",
value);
} else if value > 100 {
panic!("Guess value must be less than or equal to 100, got {}.",
value);
}
Guess {
value: value,
}
}
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
#[should_panic(expected = "Guess value must be less than or equal to 100")]
fn greater_than_100() {
Guess::new(200);
}
}
Listing 11-9: Testing that a condition will cause a
panic! with a particular panic message
This test will pass, because the value we put in the expected parameter of
the should_panic attribute is a substring of the message that the
Guess::new function panics with. We could have specified the whole panic
message that we expect, which in this case would be Guess value must be less
than or equal to 100, got 200. It 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
function that gets run is 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:
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);
}
This time when we run the should_panic test, it will fail:
running 1 test
test tests::greater_than_100 ... FAILED
failures:
---- tests::greater_than_100 stdout ----
thread 'tests::greater_than_100' panicked at 'Guess value must be greater
than or equal to 1, got 200.', src/lib.rs:10
note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` for a backtrace.
note: Panic did not include expected string 'Guess value must be less than or
equal to 100'
failures:
tests::greater_than_100
test result: FAILED. 0 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured
The failure message indicates that this test did indeed panic as we expected,
but the panic message did not include expected string 'Guess value must be
less than or equal to 100'. We can see the panic message that we did get,
which in this case was Guess value must be greater than or equal to 1, got
200. We could then start figuring out where our bug was!
Now that we've gone over ways to write tests, let's look at what is happening
when we run our tests and talk about the different options we can use with
cargo test.