Allow to customize test function name

[Mingun]

For example, I want to test all formats from kaitai-struct gallery. I use following code (folder formats is git checkout of https://github.com/kaitai-io/kaitai_struct_formats repository):

#[cfg(test)]
mod formats {
  use std::fs::File;
  use test_generator::test_resources;
  use super::Ksy;

  #[test_resources("formats/**/*.ksy")]
  fn parse(resource: &str) {
    let file = File::open(resource).expect(&format!("can't read file {}", resource));
    let _: Ksy = serde_yaml::from_reader(file).expect(&format!("invalid file {}", resource));
  }
}

and get following output:

test parser::formats::parse_formats_archive_cpio_old_le_ksy ... ok
...

Generated function name seems repeat module name. I would be like see something like

test parser::formats::parse_archive_cpio_old_le_ksy ... ok
...

That can be implemented, for example, by introducing capture group in glob pattern, something like #[test_resources("formats/(**/*).ksy")]

[frehberg]

Would be a grood improvement, I like this idea :)

[ian-h-chamberlain]

+1 to this idea, for an example of a similar crate that allows customization like this you could look at test_case

Their generate tests are actually #[cfg(test)] modules, e.g. this code

#[test_case(1; "my test 1")]
#[test_case(2; "my test 2")]
fn do_test(x: usize) {}

would generate something like

#[cfg(test)]
mod do_test {
   fn do_test(x: usize) {}

    #[test]
    fn my_test_1() {do_test(1);}

    #[test]
    fn my_test_2() {do_test(2);}
}

Personally I'm a fan of this model as it logically groups related tests into a proper module structure.