Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[EXPLORATORY] bootstrap: break up test.rs into smaller modules by test kind - #135072
Closed
jieyouxu wants to merge 2 commits into
Closed
[EXPLORATORY] bootstrap: break up test.rs into smaller modules by test kind#135072jieyouxu wants to merge 2 commits into
test.rs into smaller modules by test kind#135072jieyouxu wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
Zalathar
commented
Jan 3, 2025
Member
A few quick notes based on my own exploration:
|
onur-ozkan
commented
Jan 3, 2025
Contributor
Please assign/ping me once it's ready. |
MemberAuthor
I'll open a separate PR with a sequence of (more-or-less) atomic commits to split out the modules one-by-one, once we figure out what to do with the weirder test |
Zalathar
commented
Jan 4, 2025
Member
Another thought: if we’re doing a module split and a renaming, maybe we can use the modules as part of the naming convention. So instead of |
jieyouxu
commented
Jan 4, 2025
MemberAuthor
Indeed we could. |
bors
commented
Jan 4, 2025
Collaborator
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #135095) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
jieyouxu
commented
Jan 7, 2025
Comment on lines
+642
to
+669
| impl Step for CollectLicenseMetadata { | ||
| type Output = PathBuf; | ||
| const ONLY_HOSTS: bool = true; | ||
| fn should_run(run: ShouldRun<'_>) -> ShouldRun<'_> { | ||
| run.path("src/tools/collect-license-metadata") | ||
| } | ||
| fn make_run(run: RunConfig<'_>) { | ||
| run.builder.ensure(CollectLicenseMetadata); | ||
| } | ||
| fn run(self, builder: &Builder<'_>) -> Self::Output { | ||
| let Some(reuse) = &builder.config.reuse else { | ||
| panic!("REUSE is required to collect the license metadata"); | ||
| }; | ||
| let dest = builder.src.join("license-metadata.json"); | ||
| let mut cmd = builder.tool_cmd(Tool::CollectLicenseMetadata); | ||
| cmd.env("REUSE_EXE", reuse); | ||
| cmd.env("DEST", &dest); | ||
| cmd.env("ONLY_CHECK", "1"); | ||
| cmd.run(builder); | ||
| dest | ||
| } | ||
| } |
MemberAuthor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also wait, is this really a test?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the ONLY_CHECK=1 is what makes it a test.
This was referenced Feb 17, 2025
jieyouxu
commented
Feb 18, 2025
MemberAuthor
Closing in favor of #137224. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Exploratory work for https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/326414-t-infra.2Fbootstrap/topic/Renaming.20test.20step.20structs.
cc bootstrap: Apply a clearer naming convention to many of the test steps #135071.
No functional changes, only moving stuff around.
r? @ghost