Add feature indicator test

[Serock3]

Add simple test that modifies the settings and endpoint with one variable at a time and verifies that the corresponding indicator is activated.

Fixes: DES-1159

---

This change is 

[MarkusPettersson98]

Nice! If we could fail the test when a new feature indicator (which is not yet covered by this test) is added, do you think that would add additional value? 😊

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @Serock3)

---

mullvad-types/src/features.rs line 230 at r1 (raw file):

            compute_feature_indicators(&settings, &endpoint),
            expected_indicators
        );

Is the intent to enable ad-blocking DNS twice?:)

Code quote:

        settings
            .tunnel_options
            .dns_options
            .default_options
            .block_ads = true;

        expected_indicators
            .0
            .insert(FeatureIndicator::DnsContentBlockers);

        assert_eq!(
            compute_feature_indicators(&settings, &endpoint),
            expected_indicators
        );

        settings
            .tunnel_options
            .dns_options
            .default_options
            .block_ads = true;

        expected_indicators
            .0
            .insert(FeatureIndicator::DnsContentBlockers);

        assert_eq!(
            compute_feature_indicators(&settings, &endpoint),
            expected_indicators
        );

[Serock3]

Done

Reviewable status: 1 of 2 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @MarkusPettersson98)

---

mullvad-types/src/features.rs line 230 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, MarkusPettersson98 (Markus Pettersson) wrote…

Is the intent to enable ad-blocking DNS twice?:)

Whoops

[MarkusPettersson98]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @Serock3)

---

mullvad-types/src/features.rs line 324 at r2 (raw file):

        // !If this match statement fails to compile, it means that a new feature indicator has been
        // added. Please update this test to include the new feature indicator.

Nit Why the leading bang (!)? 😊

Code quote:

        // !If this match statement fails to compile, it means that a new feature indicator has been
        // added. Please update this test to include the new feature indicator.

[Serock3]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @MarkusPettersson98)

---

mullvad-types/src/features.rs line 324 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, MarkusPettersson98 (Markus Pettersson) wrote…

Nit Why the leading bang (!)? 😊

It's because my IDE makes the entire comment red 🙈 Not sure if that's some unofficial standard, but it made it stick out a lot more for me

[Serock3]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @MarkusPettersson98)

---

mullvad-types/src/features.rs line 324 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, Serock3 (Sebastian Holmin) wrote…

It's because my IDE makes the entire comment red 🙈 Not sure if that's some unofficial standard, but it made it stick out a lot more for me

A bit silly sure, I can remove it if you want

[MarkusPettersson98]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @Serock3)

---

mullvad-types/src/features.rs line 324 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, Serock3 (Sebastian Holmin) wrote…

A bit silly sure, I can remove it if you want

Oh, maybe. I've never seen it used before 🤔 For that purpose there is the NOTE: convention* which is failry widespread. I would prefer that one, since my editor doesn't pick up the // !..-formatting 😊

• https://github.com/JohnPostlethwait/fixme

[Serock3]

Reviewable status: 1 of 2 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @MarkusPettersson98)

---

mullvad-types/src/features.rs line 324 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, MarkusPettersson98 (Markus Pettersson) wrote…

Oh, maybe. I've never seen it used before 🤔 For that purpose there is the NOTE: convention* which is failry widespread. I would prefer that one, since my editor doesn't pick up the // !..-formatting 😊

• https://github.com/JohnPostlethwait/fixme

I agree that NOTE: is more widespread, switched to that

[MarkusPettersson98]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[linear]

DES-1159 Add test for feature indicator calculation