Proposal: Add setup teardown functionality to tests about zig

[rohlem]

test "teardownonce" {...}

It would be highly unintuitive for me if Zig changed the behavior of tests based on the string literal used to name the test case.
If such a feature were introduced, it should imo be specially marked in the source code in some other way.

I also don't think the benefit of the per-test setup and teardown is worth this special-casing.
You can already declare them as normal functions and start your test blocks with setup(); defer teardown(); for the same effect.

The proposal also isn't concrete enough about which scope these special constructs should apply to.
Currently zig test collects all test declarations found, starting with analysis of the root source file, and may include the entire source tree.
I doubt you need/want the same setup and teardown procedure for every test in your source code. This work is overhead for tests that don't need it.

Also note zig test CLI option --test-runner can already be used to specify a custom (modified) test runner.
You could use that to implement the setuponce and teardownonce behavior in userland in status-quo.

my second day in Zig ...

Feel free to discuss and share your experiences in one of the Community spaces.
This issue tracker tries to stay focused on technical discussion of bugs/deficiencies in Zig and core Zig toolchain development.
"X would be nice" feature requests are (in my experience) generally considered off-topic,
unless you can provide a use case that would directly benefit Zig toolchain development itself.

[g41797]

Feel free to discuss and share your experiences in one of the Community spaces.

I added r/Zig to Community
Thanks you