-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
test: migrate rust_version and rustc* to snapbox #14177
Conversation
r? @weihanglo rustbot has assigned @weihanglo. Use |
09adbaf
to
a8c5c3e
Compare
.run(); | ||
} | ||
|
||
#[allow(deprecated)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
with_stderr_does_not_contain
is being used in this function.
@@ -622,6 +589,7 @@ fn rustc_with_other_profile() { | |||
p.cargo("rustc --profile test").run(); | |||
} | |||
|
|||
#[allow(deprecated)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
with_stderr_does_not_contain
is being used in this function.
@@ -10,6 +8,7 @@ const MISS: &str = "[..] rustc info cache miss[..]"; | |||
const HIT: &str = "[..]rustc info cache hit[..]"; | |||
const UPDATE: &str = "[..]updated rustc info cache[..]"; | |||
|
|||
#[allow(deprecated)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
with_stderr_does_not_contain
is being used in this function.
@@ -105,6 +104,7 @@ fn rustc_info_cache() { | |||
.run(); | |||
} | |||
|
|||
#[allow(deprecated)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
with_stderr_does_not_contain
is being used in this function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Based on the assertion that shows a pair of contain
with does_not_contain
, I'm inclined to keep it as is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How bad is it if we compare the full output? I think we may need to add a comment for each cargo invocation for the expected hit/miss/update output.
I do want to kill does_not_contain
as it is even more unreliable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good! I'll give it a shot and see what results we can get.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, it seems like there are extra log messages related to rustup
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That is terribly bad. Let's keep the old tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
done reverting!
.with_stdout_contains("target_vendor=\"unknown\"") | ||
.with_stdout_contains("target_os=\"linux\"") | ||
.with_stdout_contains("unix") | ||
.with_stdout_data(str![[r#" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The order is not so importnat, should we use .unordered()
and just one ...
instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, this also works and make sense to me!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How bad is it if we compare the full output? I think we may need to add a comment for each cargo invocation for the expected hit/miss/update output.
I do want to kill does_not_contain
as it is even more unreliable.
Looks great. Thank you for the migration. @bors r+ |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Update cargo 23 commits in 4ed7bee47f7dd4416b36fada1909e9a62c546246..a515d463427b3912ec0365d106791f88c1c14e1b 2024-06-25 16:28:22 +0000 to 2024-07-02 20:53:36 +0000 - test: migrate rust_version and rustc* to snapbox (rust-lang/cargo#14177) - test: mirgate fix* and future_incompat_report to snapbox (rust-lang/cargo#14173) - test:migrate `edition/error` to snapbox (rust-lang/cargo#14175) - chore(deps): update compatible (rust-lang/cargo#14174) - refactor(source): Clean up after PathSource/RecursivePathSource split (rust-lang/cargo#14169) - test: Migrate some files to snapbox (rust-lang/cargo#14132) - test: fix several assertions (rust-lang/cargo#14167) - test: replace glob with explicit unordered calls (rust-lang/cargo#14166) - Make it clear that `CARGO_CFG_TARGET_FAMILY` is multi-valued (rust-lang/cargo#14165) - Document `CARGO_CFG_TARGET_ABI` (rust-lang/cargo#14164) - test: Migrate git to snapbox (rust-lang/cargo#14159) - test: migrate some files to snapbox (rust-lang/cargo#14158) - test: migrate registry and registry_auth to snapbox (rust-lang/cargo#14149) - gix: remove `revision` feature from cargo (rust-lang/cargo#14160) - test: migrate package* and publish* to snapbox (rust-lang/cargo#14130) - More `update --breaking` tests (rust-lang/cargo#14049) - test: migrate clean to snapbox (rust-lang/cargo#14096) - Allow `unexpected_builtin_cfgs` lint in `user_specific_cfgs` test (rust-lang/cargo#14153) - test: migrate search, source_replacement and standard_lib to snapbox (rust-lang/cargo#14151) - Docs: Update config summary to include missing keys. (rust-lang/cargo#14145) - test: migrate `dep_info/diagnostics/direct_minimal_versions` to snapbox (rust-lang/cargo#14143) - Docs: Remove duplicate `strip` section. (rust-lang/cargo#14146) - Docs: Fix curly quotes in config docs. (rust-lang/cargo#14144)
What does this PR try to resolve?
Part of #14039.
Migrate following to snapbox:
tests/testsuite/rust_version.rs
tests/testsuite/rustc.rs
tests/testsuite/rustc_info_cache.rs