Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add warning if a resolution failed - #49542
Conversation
oli-obk
commented
Mar 31, 2018
Can you add a ui test showing the new warnings? |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Mar 31, 2018
Good idea! |
e507a56 to
dc4a9eaCompareThere was a problem hiding this comment.
No need for this as builder.rustdoc below will take care of it for you.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cmd.arg("--rustdoc-path").arg(builder.rustdoc(compiler.host)); on what might be 898 -- that call to rustdoc will auto-ensure it for you, so you shouldn't need this.
dc4a9ea to
fb1aae2CompareGuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 1, 2018
Updated (I also added some useful options to rustdoc). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's actually a good question... Looking where it's coming from.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a lot of code for very few tests. I was hoping we could somehow express this in the regular ui tests by inserting some flags via comments in the test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As would i, but (as far as i know) there's no facility in compiletest to swap out which binary is called for a specific test - only which arguments are passed. In addition, we would have to tell bootstrap to have rustdoc ready for the UI tests, even if someone is trying to run a specific non-rustdoc test.
Plus, we wanted to introduce UI tests for rustdoc at some point anyway. >_> Having them in a separate test directory will help us when we add more over time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to have a struct directly to bind the test folder path.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are there spans available that we can use to report the warnings?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It'll be part of another pr. I think this one is already big enough.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the purpose of these changes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Allow rustdoc output to be checked through UI test suite.
fb1aae2 to
efadab3CompareGuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 2, 2018
Fixed a few comments. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's probably worth changing the [-] references to also use backticks, just so they're all using the same style.
QuietMisdreavus
commented
Apr 2, 2018
The rustdoc changes look good to me, but i'm less certain about the changes to bootstrap and compiletest. I'd like some extra eyes to look at those bits. |
efadab3 to
1833b19CompareGuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 4, 2018
cc @oli-obk |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This struct should be replaceable with a host_test! macro invocation I believe.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried to at first to avoid writing code by hand, but failed... I can't only rely on UI or rustdoc test suite, I need a mix of the two.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Avoiding these changes seems good for consistency's sake.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Er, this file should be possible to leave as-is: both changes were simply extracted from struct's definition AFAICT.
1833b19 to
46f62baCompare
oli-obk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ups, forgot to submit this review...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why isn't this deny warnings failing the test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It hasn't been implemented in rustdoc (yet?). I'll remove this line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Merge the if below into this one
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You need to make this depend on rustdoc. Otherwise rustdoc might not be available when running the tests. A call to ensure should suffice
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Apparently it's done correctly (or at least that's what I understood from @Mark-Simulacrum's comment).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, this is fine as is, we depend on rustdoc below when we pass it's path.
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 7, 2018
Updated. |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 13, 2018
Anyone? cc @oli-obk@Mark-Simulacrum@QuietMisdreavus |
Mark-Simulacrum
commented
Apr 14, 2018
r=me on bootstrap changes |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 14, 2018
@bors: r=Mark-Simulacrum |
bors
commented
Apr 14, 2018
📌 Commit ae4c6d0 has been approved by |
bors
commented
Apr 14, 2018
🔒 Merge conflict |
bors
commented
Apr 15, 2018
…Mark-Simulacrum Add warning if a resolution failed r? @QuietMisdreavus
bors
commented
Apr 15, 2018
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 15, 2018
The appveyor tests output just end on |
bors
commented
Apr 16, 2018
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #49956) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
kennytm
commented
Apr 16, 2018
@GuillaumeGomez That looks like just a spurious 3-hour timeout. But now you need to rebase anyway... |
4b7f4cc to
05275daCompareGuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 17, 2018
Rebased, let's go again! @bors: r+ p=11 |
bors
commented
Apr 17, 2018
📌 Commit 05275da has been approved by |
bors
commented
Apr 17, 2018
…GuillaumeGomez Add warning if a resolution failed r? @QuietMisdreavus
bors
commented
Apr 17, 2018
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
r? @QuietMisdreavus