-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
More thorough status-quo tests for #[coverage(..)]
#126621
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
rustbot has assigned @petrochenkov. Use |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
A-code-coverage
Area: Source-based code coverage (-Cinstrument-coverage)
labels
Jun 18, 2024
Could you mark the places in tests that show undesirable or at least questionable behavior with FIXME comments? |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.
and removed
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
labels
Jun 18, 2024
This test reflects the current implementation behaviour, which is not necessarily the desired behaviour.
…tions These tests reflect the current implementation behaviour, which is not necessarily the desired behaviour.
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
test-coverage-attr
branch
from
June 18, 2024 11:28
062312d
to
5093658
Compare
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
and removed
S-waiting-on-author
Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.
labels
Jun 18, 2024
Thanks! |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
and removed
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
labels
Jun 18, 2024
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2024
…llaumeGomez Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#125988 (Migrate `run-make/used` to `rmake.rs`) - rust-lang#126500 (Migrate `error-found-staticlib-instead-crate`, `output-filename-conflicts-with-directory`, `output-filename-overwrites-input`, `native-link-modifier-verbatim-rustc` and `native-link-verbatim-linker` `run-make` tests to `rmake.rs` format) - rust-lang#126583 (interpret: better error when we ran out of memory) - rust-lang#126587 (coverage: Add debugging flag `-Zcoverage-options=no-mir-spans`) - rust-lang#126621 (More thorough status-quo tests for `#[coverage(..)]`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#126621 - Zalathar:test-coverage-attr, r=petrochenkov More thorough status-quo tests for `#[coverage(..)]` In light of the stabilization push at rust-lang#84605 (comment), I have written some tests to more thoroughly capture the current behaviour of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute. These tests aim to capture the *current* behaviour, which is not necessarily the desired behaviour. For example, some of the error message are not great, some things that perhaps ought to cause an error do not, and recursive coverage attributes have not been implemented yet. `@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
This was referenced Jun 19, 2024
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 20, 2024
…illot More status-quo tests for the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute Follow-up to rust-lang#126621, after I found even more weird corner-cases in the handling of the coverage attribute. These tests reveal some inconsistencies that are tracked by rust-lang#126658.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 20, 2024
…illot More status-quo tests for the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute Follow-up to rust-lang#126621, after I found even more weird corner-cases in the handling of the coverage attribute. These tests reveal some inconsistencies that are tracked by rust-lang#126658.
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 20, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#126659 - Zalathar:test-coverage-attr, r=cjgillot More status-quo tests for the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute Follow-up to rust-lang#126621, after I found even more weird corner-cases in the handling of the coverage attribute. These tests reveal some inconsistencies that are tracked by rust-lang#126658.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
A-code-coverage
Area: Source-based code coverage (-Cinstrument-coverage)
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
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.
In light of the stabilization push at #84605 (comment), I have written some tests to more thoroughly capture the current behaviour of the
#[coverage(..)]
attribute.These tests aim to capture the current behaviour, which is not necessarily the desired behaviour. For example, some of the error message are not great, some things that perhaps ought to cause an error do not, and recursive coverage attributes have not been implemented yet.
@rustbot label +A-code-coverage