New package: TestRunner v0.1.0

[JuliaRegistrator]

• Registering package: TestRunner
• Repository: https://github.com/aviatesk/TestRunner.jl
• Created by: @aviatesk
• Version: v0.1.0
• Commit: 236998a16d88a1d4aad8a591548676ae31802315
• Reviewed by: @aviatesk
• Reference: https://github.com/aviatesk/TestRunner.jl/commit/236998a16d88a1d4aad8a591548676ae31802315#commitcomment-170574342
• Description: A selective test runner for Julia

[github-actions[bot]]

Hello, I am an automated registration bot. I help manage the registration process by checking your registration against a set of AutoMerge guidelines. If all these guidelines are met, this pull request will be merged automatically, completing your registration. It is strongly recommended to follow the guidelines, since otherwise the pull request needs to be manually reviewed and merged by a human.

1. New package registration

Please make sure that you have read the package naming guidelines.

2. AutoMerge Guidelines are all met! ✅

Your new package registration met all of the guidelines for auto-merging and is scheduled to be merged when the mandatory waiting period (3 days) has elapsed.

3. To pause or stop registration

If you want to prevent this pull request from being auto-merged, simply leave a comment. If you want to post a comment without blocking auto-merging, you must include the text [noblock] in your comment.

Tip: You can edit blocking comments to add [noblock] in order to unblock auto-merging.

[goerz]

This looks very neat, but a few thoughts:

• Is there any chance this could be hosted by an org instead of a personal account? Presumably, JuliaTesting
• The README seems a bit long and hard to navigate. Wouldn't it be better to have a more minimal README and instead set up a proper Documenter-based documentation? That would also ensure that docstrings are up-to-date and that example code can be automatically verified
• The "testing space" in Julia is getting to be a little confusing, with a lot of packages with similar names and similar concepts like "test sets"/"test items". I would consider it especially important to situate this package in that space, describing its compatibility with other packages and how it fits in with existing approaches in JuliaTesting and julia-vscode like TestItemRunner by @davidanthoff et. al., which seem to be getting a lot of traction.
• Ideally, it would be good to coordinate and de-fracture the space of testing-related packages, so that Julia can have a single coherent story for best test practices. A (pre-) announcement of this package on Discourse would probably be a good idea to foster some discussion.

[aviatesk]

I think we should do all of them ideally, but I won't have time for them in the next week or so. Is it better to do them before this registration is released?

[goerz]

Is it better to do them before this registration is released?

I'd definitely say it's better, but if there's a very pressing need to get this merged quickly, I wouldn't want to hold it up. Generally, the more community buy-in and discussion there is for general test tooling and "authoritative" package names like TestRunner, the better.

If you were "random person on the internet" trying to register this, I'd be more concerned, but as an employee of Julia Computing and with your other involvement in the ecosystem, I'm perfectly comfortable letting this merge now or at any point in the future. That doesn't mean more coordination in this space wouldn't be a good thing, and maybe something to do before finalizing the registration.

Moving to an org, in particular, can be done after registration, but then it requires being handled manually by a registry maintainer. So making that decision before registration just seems more respectful of their time.