add optimize as an input

[longemen3000]

solves #139

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (9ed3aa0) to head (ee6f03f).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #140   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            1         1           
  Lines            2         2           
=========================================
  Hits             2         2           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[DilumAluthge]

Hmmm. Could the user use the existing mechanism for passing arbitrary test args?

[giordano]

Hmmm. Could the user use the existing mechanism for passing arbitrary test args?

test_args are passed after -- so no?

[longemen3000]

Ideally, a julia-args input could be added, but it clashes with the existing julia input.

[DilumAluthge]

A julia-args input makes sense to me. Why can't we add that?

[longemen3000]

What would be the behaviour when passing julia-args? I can think of two options:

• overwrite existing arguments
• append julia-args to the existing arguments

[DilumAluthge]

Ah, I see. I was thinking "append". Maybe we could explicitly name it additional-julia-args to make that more clear?

[MasonProtter]

Bump. I'm very interested in having this functionality for test suits I run that are dominated by compilation times. It'd be nice to have julia-args but even just the functionality already in this PR would be great.

Ah, I see. I was thinking "append". Maybe we could explicitly name it additional-julia-args to make that more clear?

We could call it that, but then it wouldn't match the keyword argument to Pkg.test which isn't ideal.

From the Pkg.test docstring:

The tests are executed in a new process with check-bounds=yes and by default
startup-file=no. If using the startup file (~/.julia/config/startup.jl) is desired,
start julia with --startup-file=yes. Inlining of functions during testing can be
disabled (for better coverage accuracy) by starting julia with --inline=no. The tests
can be run as if different command line arguments were passed to julia by passing the
arguments instead to the julia_args keyword argument, e.g.

 Pkg.test("foo"; julia_args=["--inline"])

[tomchor]

Also very interested in this functionality.

[ericphanson]

IIUC, with Pkg.test, julia_args overwrites other values: https://github.com/JuliaLang/Pkg.jl/blob/b323a38299903e613540455c044aedfab382f94f/src/Operations.jl#L2023. Pkg.test does not have inline::Bool for instances, but you are calling it from a julia session with some value so that sets the default that could be overwritten. So maybe our inline option is similar.

I agree with Mason that we should use the same name, julia_args.

For this PR it seems consistent with how the existing options work, so I don't think we should block it on adding julia_args. We already have options redundant with julia_args, namely inline checkbounds, depwarn, and so forth.