Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 99.24% and project coverage change: +0.11 🎉

Comparison is base (8b01a39) 94.78% compared to head (46ffe73) 94.89%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #1250      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    94.78%   94.89%   +0.11%     
===========================================
  Files          109      111       +2     
  Lines         5173     5286     +113     
  Branches        24       24              
===========================================
+ Hits          4903     5016     +113     
- Misses         262      263       +1     
+ Partials         8        7       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

Unit Test Results

       1 files         2 suites   5m 24s ⏱️
1 047 tests 1 043 ✔️ 4 💤 0 ❌
1 050 runs  1 042 ✔️ 8 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit 46ffe73.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

So seems like there is no hit in perf:
New code:
Finished in 9.393748 seconds
2000 tests, 0 failed, 0 errored, 0 disabled, 0 warning(s)

First run took+000000000 00:01:26.587663000

Finished in 16.495174 seconds
2000 tests, 0 failed, 0 errored, 0 disabled, 0 warning(s)

Second run took+000000000 00:01:17.189142000

Finished in 13.658072 seconds
2000 tests, 0 failed, 0 errored, 0 disabled, 0 warning(s)

third run took+000000000 00:01:20.499584000

old

Finished in 16.167675 seconds
2000 tests, 0 failed, 0 errored, 0 disabled, 0 warning(s)

First run took+000000000 00:03:37.830094000

Finished in 13.127262 seconds
2000 tests, 0 failed, 0 errored, 0 disabled, 0 warning(s)

Second run took+000000000 00:03:29.262099000

Finished in 10.98218 seconds
2000 tests, 0 failed, 0 errored, 0 disabled, 0 warning(s)

Third run took+000000000 00:03:01.665203000

@jgebal I'm also considering to add keywords none() and any(). What you think? It will take an extra time to implement.
Also not sure if that would have any usage so maybe keep it simple :)

I can review this PR after Wednesday.
Sorry for delay.

What is the idea behind any() and none()?
Can you explain how it would work?

Aye, no rush. As for keyword as per junit5
Two special expressions are supported, any() and none(), which select all tests with any tags at all, and all tests without any tags, respectively. These special expressions may be combined with other expressions just like normal tags. docs

Got some small changes to do still.
Want to validate using a shunting algorithm and polish reverse notation.
That should allow me to put a back later on to SQL filter of tag members string in infix notation.
The initial idea of using regex was flaky and unreliable.
The RPN supports all complex expressions.

Aye, no rush. As for keyword as per junit5 Two special expressions are supported, any() and none(), which select all tests with any tags at all, and all tests without any tags, respectively. These special expressions may be combined with other expressions just like normal tags. docs

Sounds like a great idea.
You want to do it as part of this PR or separate after this one is done?

Aye, no rush. As for keyword as per junit5 Two special expressions are supported, any() and none(), which select all tests with any tags at all, and all tests without any tags, respectively. These special expressions may be combined with other expressions just like normal tags. docs

Sounds like a great idea. You want to do it as part of this PR or separate after this one is done?

Let's get that in new PR.
It will be cleaner to review and write tests as well as update documentation.
I started already working on change and seems like it small one but need to write more complex tests and scenarios.

Aye, no rush. As for keyword as per junit5 Two special expressions are supported, any() and none(), which select all tests with any tags at all, and all tests without any tags, respectively. These special expressions may be combined with other expressions just like normal tags. docs

Sounds like a great idea. You want to do it as part of this PR or separate after this one is done?

Let's get that in new PR. It will be cleaner to review and write tests as well as update documentation. I started already working on change and seems like it small one but need to write more complex tests and scenarios.

I have added into existing PR as the change was minimal.

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

99.3% Coverage
0.0% Duplication

👏👏👏