Collaborate on testing

[pentamassiv]

Hi,

I just read your comment on HN. Testing really is difficult. Maybe we can work together on getting better testing in the CI? I run some tests already, but they don't cover enough test cases and are too brittle for my taste. I didn't get the change yet to look at your code and the tests you have but once I have more time, I'll do that.

[moses-palmer]

Thank you for reaching out!

As you note, testing this library is rather time consuming. I noted in the comment on HN that the primary purpose of the monitoring parts of the library initially were to be able to automate testing of the input simulation parts, but the monitoring parts themselves also require testing with real inputs, and so manual testing is still required.

I had a quick look at your repo, and note that your keyboard input tests assume success unless enigo::Enigo::text panics. I think you may be able to use pynput.keyboard.Listener in a separate process here to verify that the input events are properly sent. If you think this would be helpful, I could help an MR or just general guidance.