Suite descriptions are not aggregated

[PhilippSalvisberg]

Consider the following test scenario:

create or replace package x is

   --%suite(suite x)
   --%suitepath(foo.bar)

   --%test(feature a)
   --%disabled
   procedure test_a;

   --%test(feature b)
   --%disabled
   procedure test_b;

end;
/

create or replace package y is

   --%suite(suite y)
   --%suitepath(foo.bar)

   --%test(feature c)
   --%disabled
   procedure test_c;

   --%test(feature d)
   --%disabled
   procedure test_d;

end;
/

Running the following code in the worksheet

set serveroutput on size unlimited 
execute ut.run('plscope:foo');

produces a result similar to:

foo
  bar
    suite y
      feature c [0 sec] (DISABLED)
      feature d [0 sec] (DISABLED)
    suite x
      feature a [0 sec] (DISABLED)
      feature b [0 sec] (DISABLED)
 
Finished in .008275 seconds
4 tests, 0 failed, 0 errored, 4 disabled, 0 warning(s)

In the realtime reporter the result looks like this:

I see the following problems:

• The suite description is suite y for the nodes foo, bar, y. It's correct for x only. For the other nodes foo and bar the description should be aggregated. Either something like suite y; suite x (order according position in the tree).
• The option Show description (if present) is not honored for the nodes x and y (see also output of the worksheet).
  • suite x should be shown instead of x
  • suite y should be shown instead of y

[PhilippSalvisberg]

The pre-run event document in this case looks as follows:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<event type="pre-run">
  <items>
    <suite id="foo">
      <name>foo</name>
      <items>
        <suite id="foo.bar">
          <name>bar</name>
          <items>
            <suite id="foo.bar.y">
              <name>y</name>
              <description>suite y</description>
              <items>
                <test id="foo.bar.y.test_c">
                  <executableType>test</executableType>
                  <ownerName>SCOTT</ownerName>
                  <objectName>y</objectName>
                  <procedureName>test_c</procedureName>
                  <disabled>true</disabled>
                  <name>test_c</name>
                  <description>feature c</description>
                  <testNumber>1</testNumber>
                </test>
                <test id="foo.bar.y.test_d">
                  <executableType>test</executableType>
                  <ownerName>SCOTT</ownerName>
                  <objectName>y</objectName>
                  <procedureName>test_d</procedureName>
                  <disabled>true</disabled>
                  <name>test_d</name>
                  <description>feature d</description>
                  <testNumber>2</testNumber>
                </test>
              </items>
            </suite>
            <suite id="foo.bar.x">
              <name>x</name>
              <description>suite x</description>
              <items>
                <test id="foo.bar.x.test_a">
                  <executableType>test</executableType>
                  <ownerName>SCOTT</ownerName>
                  <objectName>x</objectName>
                  <procedureName>test_a</procedureName>
                  <disabled>true</disabled>
                  <name>test_a</name>
                  <description>feature a</description>
                  <testNumber>3</testNumber>
                </test>
                <test id="foo.bar.x.test_b">
                  <executableType>test</executableType>
                  <ownerName>SCOTT</ownerName>
                  <objectName>x</objectName>
                  <procedureName>test_b</procedureName>
                  <disabled>true</disabled>
                  <name>test_b</name>
                  <description>feature b</description>
                  <testNumber>4</testNumber>
                </test>
              </items>
            </suite>
          </items>
        </suite>
      </items>
    </suite>
  </items>
  <totalNumberOfTests>4</totalNumberOfTests>
</event>

It shows that the following nodes do not have a description:

• foo
• foo.bar

This means that instead of aggregating just an null value for description would be the better solution. It would reflect the utPLSQL model.