Fix toggle-click-deadspace rustdoc-gui test

[jsha]

In #91103 I introduced a rustdoc-gui test for clicks on toggles. I introduced some documentation on a method in lib2/struct.Foo.html so there would be something to toggle, but accidentally left the test checking test_docs/struct.Foo.html. That caused the test to reliably fail.

I'm not sure how that test got past GitHub Actions and bors, but it's manifesting in test failures at #91062 (comment) and #91170 (comment).

This fixes by pointing at the right file.

r? @GuillaumeGomez

[GuillaumeGomez]

Considering it's breaking the CI, setting a slightly higher priority.

@bors: r+ p=1

[bors]

📌 Commit 420be4a has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 420be4a with merge 982c552...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 982c552 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (982c552): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to very large relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Very large improvement in instruction counts (up to -5.8% on incr-unchanged builds of inflate)
• Large regression in instruction counts (up to 4.1% on incr-unchanged builds of deep-vector)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression

[GuillaumeGomez]

Euh. What? Why are there perf changes in here? XD

[Mark-Simulacrum]

cc rust-lang/rustc-perf#1105, spurious change, dropping regression label.

[jsha]

In #91103 I introduced a rustdoc-gui test for clicks on toggles. I introduced some documentation on a method in lib2/struct.Foo.html so there would be something to toggle, but accidentally left the test checking test_docs/struct.Foo.html. That caused the test to reliably fail.

I'm not sure how that test got past GitHub Actions and bors, but it's manifesting in test failures at #91062 (comment) and #91170 (comment).

This fixes by pointing at the right file.

r? @GuillaumeGomez

[GuillaumeGomez]

Considering it's breaking the CI, setting a slightly higher priority.

@bors: r+ p=1

[bors]

📌 Commit 420be4a has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 420be4a with merge 982c552...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 982c552 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (982c552): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to very large relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Very large improvement in instruction counts (up to -5.8% on incr-unchanged builds of inflate)
• Large regression in instruction counts (up to 4.1% on incr-unchanged builds of deep-vector)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression

[GuillaumeGomez]

Euh. What? Why are there perf changes in here? XD

[Mark-Simulacrum]

cc rust-lang/rustc-perf#1105, spurious change, dropping regression label.

[jsha]

In #91103 I introduced a rustdoc-gui test for clicks on toggles. I introduced some documentation on a method in lib2/struct.Foo.html so there would be something to toggle, but accidentally left the test checking test_docs/struct.Foo.html. That caused the test to reliably fail.

I'm not sure how that test got past GitHub Actions and bors, but it's manifesting in test failures at #91062 (comment) and #91170 (comment).

This fixes by pointing at the right file.

r? @GuillaumeGomez

[GuillaumeGomez]

Considering it's breaking the CI, setting a slightly higher priority.

@bors: r+ p=1

[bors]

📌 Commit 420be4a has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 420be4a with merge 982c552...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 982c552 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (982c552): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to very large relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Very large improvement in instruction counts (up to -5.8% on incr-unchanged builds of inflate)
• Large regression in instruction counts (up to 4.1% on incr-unchanged builds of deep-vector)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression

[GuillaumeGomez]

Euh. What? Why are there perf changes in here? XD

[Mark-Simulacrum]

cc rust-lang/rustc-perf#1105, spurious change, dropping regression label.

[jsha]

In #91103 I introduced a rustdoc-gui test for clicks on toggles. I introduced some documentation on a method in lib2/struct.Foo.html so there would be something to toggle, but accidentally left the test checking test_docs/struct.Foo.html. That caused the test to reliably fail.

I'm not sure how that test got past GitHub Actions and bors, but it's manifesting in test failures at #91062 (comment) and #91170 (comment).

This fixes by pointing at the right file.

r? @GuillaumeGomez

[GuillaumeGomez]

Considering it's breaking the CI, setting a slightly higher priority.

@bors: r+ p=1

[bors]

📌 Commit 420be4a has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 420be4a with merge 982c552...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 982c552 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (982c552): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to very large relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Very large improvement in instruction counts (up to -5.8% on incr-unchanged builds of inflate)
• Large regression in instruction counts (up to 4.1% on incr-unchanged builds of deep-vector)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression

[GuillaumeGomez]

Euh. What? Why are there perf changes in here? XD

[Mark-Simulacrum]

cc rust-lang/rustc-perf#1105, spurious change, dropping regression label.

[jsha]

In #91103 I introduced a rustdoc-gui test for clicks on toggles. I introduced some documentation on a method in lib2/struct.Foo.html so there would be something to toggle, but accidentally left the test checking test_docs/struct.Foo.html. That caused the test to reliably fail.

I'm not sure how that test got past GitHub Actions and bors, but it's manifesting in test failures at #91062 (comment) and #91170 (comment).

This fixes by pointing at the right file.

r? @GuillaumeGomez

[GuillaumeGomez]

Considering it's breaking the CI, setting a slightly higher priority.

@bors: r+ p=1

[bors]

📌 Commit 420be4a has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 420be4a with merge 982c552...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 982c552 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (982c552): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to very large relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Very large improvement in instruction counts (up to -5.8% on incr-unchanged builds of inflate)
• Large regression in instruction counts (up to 4.1% on incr-unchanged builds of deep-vector)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression

[GuillaumeGomez]

Euh. What? Why are there perf changes in here? XD

[Mark-Simulacrum]

cc rust-lang/rustc-perf#1105, spurious change, dropping regression label.

[jsha]

In #91103 I introduced a rustdoc-gui test for clicks on toggles. I introduced some documentation on a method in lib2/struct.Foo.html so there would be something to toggle, but accidentally left the test checking test_docs/struct.Foo.html. That caused the test to reliably fail.

I'm not sure how that test got past GitHub Actions and bors, but it's manifesting in test failures at #91062 (comment) and #91170 (comment).

This fixes by pointing at the right file.

r? @GuillaumeGomez

[GuillaumeGomez]

Considering it's breaking the CI, setting a slightly higher priority.

@bors: r+ p=1

[bors]

📌 Commit 420be4a has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 420be4a with merge 982c552...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 982c552 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (982c552): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to very large relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Very large improvement in instruction counts (up to -5.8% on incr-unchanged builds of inflate)
• Large regression in instruction counts (up to 4.1% on incr-unchanged builds of deep-vector)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression

[GuillaumeGomez]

Euh. What? Why are there perf changes in here? XD

[Mark-Simulacrum]

cc rust-lang/rustc-perf#1105, spurious change, dropping regression label.

[jsha]

In #91103 I introduced a rustdoc-gui test for clicks on toggles. I introduced some documentation on a method in lib2/struct.Foo.html so there would be something to toggle, but accidentally left the test checking test_docs/struct.Foo.html. That caused the test to reliably fail.

I'm not sure how that test got past GitHub Actions and bors, but it's manifesting in test failures at #91062 (comment) and #91170 (comment).

This fixes by pointing at the right file.

r? @GuillaumeGomez

[GuillaumeGomez]

Considering it's breaking the CI, setting a slightly higher priority.

@bors: r+ p=1

[bors]

📌 Commit 420be4a has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 420be4a with merge 982c552...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 982c552 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (982c552): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to very large relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Very large improvement in instruction counts (up to -5.8% on incr-unchanged builds of inflate)
• Large regression in instruction counts (up to 4.1% on incr-unchanged builds of deep-vector)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression

[GuillaumeGomez]

Euh. What? Why are there perf changes in here? XD

[Mark-Simulacrum]

cc rust-lang/rustc-perf#1105, spurious change, dropping regression label.

[jsha]

In #91103 I introduced a rustdoc-gui test for clicks on toggles. I introduced some documentation on a method in lib2/struct.Foo.html so there would be something to toggle, but accidentally left the test checking test_docs/struct.Foo.html. That caused the test to reliably fail.

I'm not sure how that test got past GitHub Actions and bors, but it's manifesting in test failures at #91062 (comment) and #91170 (comment).

This fixes by pointing at the right file.

r? @GuillaumeGomez

[GuillaumeGomez]

Considering it's breaking the CI, setting a slightly higher priority.

@bors: r+ p=1

[bors]

📌 Commit 420be4a has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 420be4a with merge 982c552...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 982c552 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (982c552): comparison url.

Summary: This change led to very large relevant mixed results 🤷 in compiler performance.

• Very large improvement in instruction counts (up to -5.8% on incr-unchanged builds of inflate)
• Large regression in instruction counts (up to 4.1% on incr-unchanged builds of deep-vector)

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression

[GuillaumeGomez]

Euh. What? Why are there perf changes in here? XD

[Mark-Simulacrum]

cc rust-lang/rustc-perf#1105, spurious change, dropping regression label.