I like the idea of rethinking how these flags interact, though I do not 
like the proposed api. A string-based pseudo-query/natural language DSL 
feels overly complicated: hard to document, hard to maintain, not worth the 
potential benefits.

My intuition would be that we should be able to honor both includes and 
excludes in a sane way, but I'm unfamiliar with the trade-offs that led to 
the current design. However, note that any changes to this behaviour could 
be a breaking change to many test suites, so have to be released cautiously 
behind the right version number.

On Monday, December 15, 2025 at 1:35:47 PM UTC-6 [email protected] 
wrote:

> TIL that `mix test --only async --exclude external_api` will say that the 
> external_api tag is skipped, but go ahead and run those cases anyway. 
>
> *Example code:*
> ```
> defmodule OnlyExceptTest do use ExUnit.Case, async: true test "normal 
> async test" do assert true end @tag :skip test "this test should be 
> excluded when using --exclude skip_me" do flunk("This test should have been 
> excluded!") end end
> ```
> # run `mix test --only async --except skip`
> I would expect only the passing test to run, but in fact, both run, 
> causing an overall failure of the task. Jon R explained that this is due to 
> the way --only uses --include under the hood, which takes precedence over 
> --exclude, meaning additional exclude flags have no effect. The explanation 
> makes sense, as does the workaround of inverting the logic to pass an 
> unified --exclude async:false --exclude test --exclude skip.
>
> However, it goes against the principle of least surprise, and creates a 
> subtle footgun, even for experienced developers. 
>
> *Real-World Use Case*
> In CI, I have separate jobs for sync and async tests. A coworker added 
> tests for an external API and put an exclude in our `test_helper.exs`. 
> However, since `--exclude` is superseded by `--include`, and I was using 
> `--only async:true` in my CI job, the API tests ran and caused CI failures.
>
> It took a message to the Elixir Slack, and a helpful reply to unblock me.
>
> I thought we might be able to prevent the confusion by preventing 
> `exclude` from being combined with `only`, but I'm not sure how that would 
> work with `test_helper` usage.
>
> However, it would still be really nice to have proper Ecto-style set 
> operations on mix test.
>
> *Slack thread*: 
> https://elixir-lang.slack.com/archives/C03EPRA3B/p1765798909362919
> *Illustrative Draft PR*: https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/pull/15014

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"elixir-lang-core" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/a71befef-cfb2-4cee-aa96-58ba2e56339an%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to