didrun

An exit code cannot tell you whether anything happened.

0 means "I did not fail." A suite of ten thousand assertions and a suite that collected nothing both report it, and no amount of reading the number harder will separate them. That is not a nuisance; it is how a check silently stops checking and nobody finds out for a year.

pip install didrun                    # the Python half
npm install -g @megapixel99/didrun    # the JavaScript half

didrun --expect-count "(\d+) passed" -- pytest tests/
didrun --expect "^ok " -- go test ./...
didrun --wrote coverage/lcov.info -- npm run coverage

The npm package is scoped because npm refused the bare name: "too similar to existing package madrun", so the two registries coordinate this under different names. The command is didrun either way; only the install line differs, and release.yml enforces that the npm name may add a scope and nothing else.

Both halves ship the same command, the same flags and the same exit codes. A CI file should not have to ask which one is installed, and python/tests/test_parity.py asserts the vocabulary they share: the four state names, the two exit codes, and that both classify the same run identically.

$ go test ./...
?   	x	[no test files]
$ echo $?
0                       # <- this is the whole problem

$ didrun --expect "^ok " -- go test ./...
?   	x	[no test files]

[didrun] DID NOT RUN — there is no evidence this command did anything  (exit 0, 296ms)
  --  output matches /^ok /: nothing in output matched /^ok /

  It exited 0. That is the failure: a check that stopped checking reports exactly this.
$ echo $?
3

The rule

A check must answer separately whether it RAN, whether it FAILED, and whether the failure was the RIGHT one. Collapsing any two of those three is how every defect in this family happens.

So this returns four states rather than a number:

The fourth exists because "it failed" is not "my check caught something". A suite that dies on a syntax error fails; so does one that caught your mutation. Scoring those alike is the difference between a harness that works and one that reports success for a file it never parsed.

did-not-run gets its own exit code and never borrows the command's, including when the command itself failed. "Your tests failed" and "you have no tests" send you to different places.

Read this first: some runners already answer question one

Let them. Checked, not assumed:

If your runner is in the first two rows, you may not need this. It is for the rest.

Evidence

At least one predicate is required. With none, run() throws and the CLI exits 2: a tool that silently degrades into forwarding the exit code is the thing it is replacing.

--expect-count is the one that matters

The thing that makes a green run meaningless is almost always a zero, not an absence: 0 passed, Ran 0 tests, 0 files checked. A pattern that only asks whether the line was printed is satisfied by exactly the run it was meant to catch, because the runner cheerfully prints its zero. Both behaviours are pinned by one test:

// `0 passed in 0.01s`, exit 0
count(/(\d+) passed/)   -> did-not-run      "reported 0"
matches(/\d+ passed/)   -> ran-and-passed   // fooled, as advertised

--wrote is not "the file exists"

A junit.xml left over from yesterday exists, and a runner that never started leaves it exactly where it was. The file must be created, changed, or rewritten during the run; a byte-for-byte identical artefact is reported as the stale thing it is.

API

from didrun import run, report, exit_code_for, evidence

result = run(["pytest", "tests/"],
             evidence=[evidence.count(r"(\d+) passed"), evidence.wrote("junit.xml")],
             expect_failure=r"AssertionError",   # when it fails, it must fail THIS way
             timeout=600)                        # killed and still classified

result.state    # "did-not-run" | "ran-and-passed" | "ran-and-failed" | "ran-and-failed-wrongly"
result.checks   # every predicate, with what it looked for and what it found

import { run, report, exitCodeFor, evidence } from "@megapixel99/didrun";

const result = await run(["pytest", "tests/"], {
  evidence: [evidence.count(/(\d+) passed/), evidence.wrote("junit.xml")],
  expectFailure: /AssertionError/,   // when it fails, it must fail THIS way
  timeout: 600_000,                  // killed and still classified
});

result.state   // "did-not-run" | "ran-and-passed" | "ran-and-failed" | "ran-and-failed-wrongly"
result.checks  // every predicate, with what it looked for and what it found
process.exitCode = exitCodeFor(result);

Every predicate must hold: every, not some. The report prints what was looked for and what was found, including when everything passed, because a check whose output is only a verdict is one nobody can audit.

A timeout is classified rather than swallowed: a killed check is a check that did not finish, never one that passed.

Prior art

Swept across both registries on mechanism nouns: the first pass queried npm only, and npm-only sweeping is what nearly missed crosshair elsewhere in this line of work.

On npm, keywords:no-tests returns one package (a CRA template) and keywords:ci-guard returns zero: dead tags, so wrong bucket names rather than open fields. test-silence inventories skipped tests from git history; jest-fail-on-console and cypress-fail-fast change what a runner does while it runs.

On PyPI, searched by name across the full 881,198-entry index plus web search, three neighbours are real and none of them is this:

• pytest-custom-exit-code changes pytest's exit code when nothing is collected. That is one runner answering question one for itself: the thing this wraps, not a replacement for it.
• evidence-gate audits GitHub Actions evidence bundles after the fact: whether an audit trail is complete and temporally bounded. A different question, downstream.
• ranit reports which functions in your diff were executed by nothing, by intersecting a coverage database with the git diff. Function granularity via coverage, not an arbitrary command with a supplied predicate, and the closest thing in spirit to this anywhere.

Nothing found wraps an arbitrary command and asks whether it did anything.

Limits

• Evidence is only as good as the pattern you supply. This does not know what your command should print; it makes you say so, once, where the next person can read it.
• --took-at-least cannot prove work happened. It is marked [weak] in the report and it is here because a suite that takes a minute finishing in 9ms is a real signal.
• It does not parse junit/TAP. --wrote plus --expect-count covers most of what that would buy.
• Zero dependencies in either half. Node ≥ 20, Python ≥ 3.9.

Tests

npm test                                        # 22
python3 -m unittest discover -s python/tests    # 21, four of them the cross-half contract

22 JavaScript tests and 21 Python tests, no dependencies in either half. Six mutations to the source, never reporting did-not-run, treating it as success, accepting one predicate instead of all, allowing a run with no evidence, ignoring the count floor, and accepting a stale artefact: were each caught by the test that should catch them.