Add information in case of markdown block code test failure

[GuillaumeGomez]

r? @steveklabnik

cc @jonathandturner

[sophiajt]

rustdoc is a tools team thing.

cc @alexcrichton for a reviewer

[GuillaumeGomez]

Since this is a very small change, I didn't think it was needed, my bad!

r? @alexcrichton

[alexcrichton]

Thanks for the PR! Could you provide some snippets of what the output looks like here?

[GuillaumeGomez]

Sure, here you go:

running 1 testtest test_1_0 ... FAILED
failures:
---- test_1_0 stdout ----
thread 'test_1_0' panicked at 'test compiled while it wasn't supposed to:
```compile_failprintln!("hoho");```'', src/librustdoc/test.rs:270
note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1`for a backtrace.
failures:
test_1_0
test result: FAILED. 0 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured

[alexcrichton]

Thanks! My only worry here is that failing tests may get quite verbose as examples can sometimes be relatively long. Thoughts @rust-lang/tools?

[brson]

Ah nice. Figuring out which code blocks doc tests represent is a huge pain.

It seems to me that the most useful info here is "src/librustdoc/test.rs:270". I wonder if we could simply rename the tests to incorporate that information. I don't think there's any particular limit on what the test runners will accept as a test name, so that exact string would probably work.

[GuillaumeGomez]

@brson: I didn't understand. What do you want exactly?

Also, to be sure we say the same thing, "src/librustdoc/test.rs:270" is where the error comes from in librustdoc. It's because of panic!, so totally useless to locate the invalid code block.

[brson]

Oh, huh. So you are right that that line number is useless. I was thinking that was being printed intentionally by rustdoc as the source location of the test case.

[brson]

I'm not sure what I think of the PR as written. I think the output is kinda weird, with the entire test content being part of the panic message, and thus producing that weird formatting of the panic location that I misunderstood. I guess I'm still inclined to a solution that points you to the original source location rather than printing the entire test case.

[GuillaumeGomez]

@brson: It has to handle both markdown and rust files. And in our error-code-list.md (generated), having a line number doesn't help much from my opinion, I think it's preferrable to just display the failing test and let the users handle it.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Any news?

[alexcrichton]

@GuillaumeGomez I believe what @brson means is that the panic message should indicate where the test was defined rather than the test itself. I'm also inclined to agree as it should be less wordy

[GuillaumeGomez]

@alexcrichton: In a lot of cases, it's not possible. I take as example the error code list. First, we generate a markdown file and then we run rustdoc on it. What's the point to give the line in this case? It'll be easier to just return the code responsible for the error (people will certainly find out more quickly this way).

[alexcrichton]

Can we at least give the line number in the markdown file?

[brson]

@GuillaumeGomez For the general case of documentation test cases, I think it is more convenient to give a line-number, for most (all?) rustdoc uses I'm aware of out-of-tree, rustdoc is testing documentation that users wrote directly, and can point precisely where the error is in the file they wrote. The generated error code list is an in-tree matter, and is not as important as the ergonomics for our users.

Though I still agree the user experience here can be better, I'm yet unconvinced that printing the entire test case is the best solution.

[GuillaumeGomez]

I proposed to truncate to 20 lines (or any other number).

[GuillaumeGomez]

So here are my arguments in favor of showing the code: we don't just say "you have an error in [file:line}", we also display the error. I think it should be the same and I'll go for this solution. After, I can always truncate the code sample, but that's secondary.

[alexcrichton]

Can we start out with file names and line numbers and see what that looks like?

[GuillaumeGomez]

So I added filename and line number, which gives us the following output:

thread 'yolo_0' panicked at 'test compiled while it wasn't supposed to:
Error on test.rs:10
```compile_fail
let y = 0;
``` // <- I added 4 spaces before because gh parsing failure
', src/librustdoc/test.rs:286

I still think we should keep the test code and truncate it to 20 lines or something along the lines. I really don't want to remove it.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #36953) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[GuillaumeGomez]

I truncated the output to 10 lines. So, does it seem good now?

[GuillaumeGomez]

cc @alexcrichton

[GuillaumeGomez]

@alexcrichton: I updated to last cargo master again. I r+ it, don't hesitate to r- if needed!

@bors: r=alexcrichton

[bors]

📌 Commit b7f1d7a has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

[GuillaumeGomez]

@bors: r- r=alexcrichton

[bors]

💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.

• There's another pull request that is currently being tested, blocking this pull request: Add dev and ino to MetadataExt #39418

[bors]

📌 Commit b7f1d7a has been approved by alexcrichton

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b7f1d7a with merge 63bffd7...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - status-travis

[alexcrichton]

Looks like 2 builds failed:

• 64-bit OSX during run-pass-fulldeps
• 32-bit OSX during doc-tests on core

The run-pass-fulldeps failure may be spurious, although I haven't seen it before. The timeout during doc-tests on core though seems particularly worrisome because of how many changes were made to rustdoc here.

[GuillaumeGomez]

@bors: retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b7f1d7a with merge c781fc4...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: alexcrichton
Pushing c781fc4 to master...