tidy: split dots in filename not the entire path when checking for stray stdout/stderr files #121992

jieyouxu · 2024-03-04T19:36:16Z

I committed a path crime by splitting the entire path on ., when I meant to split on the filename. This means that any parent folders which contain . will cause tidy failure. Added a regression test so that doesn't happen again.

Follow-up

Adjust rustc-dev-guide to document assert on test name not containing dots. Document that test names cannot contain dots rustc-dev-guide#1927

Fixes #121986.

rustbot · 2024-03-04T19:36:24Z

r? @clubby789

rustbot has assigned @clubby789.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Noratrieb · 2024-03-04T19:45:40Z

src/tools/tidy/src/tests_revision_unpaired_stdout_stderr.rs

@@ -84,7 +84,9 @@ pub fn check(tests_path: impl AsRef<Path>, bad: &mut bool) {
                }
            });

-            let Some((test_name, _)) = test.to_str().map(|s| s.split_once('.')).flatten() else {


You want https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/path/struct.Path.html#method.file_prefix which is sadly unstable

https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/path/struct.Path.html#method.with_extension should work too, and be nicer than... split 😭

Could we not use some unstable features?

I think I actually want file_stem semantics here, because I want to keep the test name which is everything but the "rs" extension. This split_once doesn't seem right. E.g. a.b.rs, the test name is should be a.b not a. Revisioned output gets additional .[rev].std{out,err} after the test name to the best of my knowledge.

Could we not use some unstable features?

Tidy requires stable no?

jieyouxu · 2024-03-04T20:14:43Z

src/tools/tidy/src/tests_revision_unpaired_stdout_stderr.rs

+            let filename_components = filename.split('.').collect::<Vec<_>>();
+            let [file_prefix, ..] = &filename_components[..] else {
+                continue;
+            };


I think this logic here isn't robust either. If a test name is a.b.rs, and previously we use file_stem, the test name becomes a.b. But now this sibling check produces a which will silently let a.b.unknown-revision.stdout go through because there is no entry in test_info. I'll have to think about this part of the logic a bit.

I'm actually not sure if we can properly check here, if we don't assume test name itself to not have any dots.

According to rustc-dev-guide, a test output can take the form

<test_name>[.<revision>][.<compare_mode>].<extension>

but <extension> can be:

stderr, stdout

run.stderr, run.stdout

64bit.stderr, 32bit.stderr

but <test_name> can also have dots if we don't assume it can't have dots.

Maybe it's just better to just say "we assume a test's name don't contain dots or else this tidy check won't catch stray stdout/stderr files for that test"?

Yes, I think that's necessary to assume for file names. We can assume that of a file name even if we can't assume that for the full path.

we assume a test's name don't contain dots or else this tidy check won't catch stray stdout/stderr files for that test

We may need to add an assertion with a message to ensure that it doesn't happen.

I'll add an aasert for if the test name contains dots, and update the dev-guide to describe this behavior.

Probably a good idea. A lot of the test infra assumes that things like e.g. .64bit.stderr remain coherent.

This is so that we can catch stray test output files, since test names without dots can form predictable patterns we can match on.

jieyouxu · 2024-03-05T08:30:17Z

Is there a way to force tidy to rerun on all test files, regardless of if they are modified or not?

onur-ozkan · 2024-03-05T08:33:33Z

Is there a way to force tidy to rerun on all test files, regardless of if they are modified or not?

Did you try --force-rerun ?

jieyouxu · 2024-03-05T08:37:11Z

Did you try --force-rerun ?

As in ./x test tidy --force-rerun? That didn't seem to check all the test files, at least not from the "formatting xxx" messages. Unless it did check, but didn't print anything?

onur-ozkan · 2024-03-05T08:38:10Z

Did you try --force-rerun ?

As in ./x test tidy --force-rerun? That didn't seem to check all the test files, at least not from the "formatting xxx" messages. Unless it did check, but didn't print anything?

Probably doesn't do anything then

jieyouxu · 2024-03-05T08:39:17Z

Probably doesn't do anything then

I'll just write an external script to go through all the test files to check if there's any multi-dot test names.

onur-ozkan · 2024-03-05T10:56:00Z

@bors r+ p=1 (as this fixes a very noisy tidy issue)

bors · 2024-03-05T10:56:03Z

📌 Commit 247a080 has been approved by onur-ozkan

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2024-03-05T13:02:45Z

⌛ Testing commit 247a080 with merge c7beecf...

bors · 2024-03-05T15:28:25Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: onur-ozkan
Pushing c7beecf to master...

rust-timer · 2024-03-05T16:43:27Z

Finished benchmarking commit (c7beecf): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.2%	[3.2%, 3.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 643.644s -> 644.654s (0.16%)
Artifact size: 175.01 MiB -> 175.03 MiB (0.01%)

onur-ozkan · 2024-03-05T20:37:16Z

Is there a way to force tidy to rerun on all test files, regardless of if they are modified or not?

As far as I see we already doing this. Could you tell what made you think that tidy doesn't already do that?

jieyouxu · 2024-03-05T21:00:10Z

As far as I see we already doing this. Could you tell what made you think that tidy doesn't already do that?

I'm actually not sure, probably because the formatting modified entries messages came first, and then I subconsciously ignored the other messages? (this is moreso me being :ferrisClueless: than anything)

Split dots in filename, not the entire path

b493613

rustbot assigned clubby789 Mar 4, 2024

jieyouxu mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2024

Tons of tidy failures on master #121986

Closed

Noratrieb reviewed Mar 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

Use Path::file_stem instead

9bebbf1

jieyouxu commented Mar 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

Assert that test names cannot contain dots

53f48dd

This is so that we can catch stray test output files, since test names without dots can form predictable patterns we can match on.

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

jieyouxu mentioned this pull request Mar 5, 2024

Document that test names cannot contain dots rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#1927

Merged

Update test names to not have dots

247a080

onur-ozkan assigned onur-ozkan and unassigned clubby789 Mar 5, 2024

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 Mar 5, 2024

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Mar 5, 2024

bors merged commit c7beecf into rust-lang:master Mar 5, 2024
12 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.78.0 milestone Mar 5, 2024

jieyouxu deleted the fix-tidy-unpaired-revision branch March 5, 2024 16:33

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

tidy: split dots in filename not the entire path when checking for stray stdout/stderr files #121992

tidy: split dots in filename not the entire path when checking for stray stdout/stderr files #121992

jieyouxu commented Mar 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

rustbot commented Mar 4, 2024

Noratrieb Mar 4, 2024

ChrisDenton Mar 4, 2024

jieyouxu Mar 4, 2024

jieyouxu Mar 4, 2024

ChrisDenton Mar 4, 2024

jieyouxu Mar 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jieyouxu Mar 4, 2024

workingjubilee Mar 5, 2024

onur-ozkan Mar 5, 2024

jieyouxu Mar 5, 2024

workingjubilee Mar 5, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

jieyouxu commented Mar 5, 2024

onur-ozkan commented Mar 5, 2024

jieyouxu commented Mar 5, 2024

onur-ozkan commented Mar 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jieyouxu commented Mar 5, 2024

onur-ozkan commented Mar 5, 2024

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

rust-timer commented Mar 5, 2024

onur-ozkan commented Mar 5, 2024

jieyouxu commented Mar 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tidy: split dots in filename not the entire path when checking for stray stdout/stderr files #121992

tidy: split dots in filename not the entire path when checking for stray stdout/stderr files #121992

Conversation

jieyouxu commented Mar 4, 2024 • edited Loading

Follow-up

rustbot commented Mar 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jieyouxu Mar 4, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

This comment has been minimized.

jieyouxu commented Mar 5, 2024

onur-ozkan commented Mar 5, 2024

jieyouxu commented Mar 5, 2024

onur-ozkan commented Mar 5, 2024 • edited Loading

jieyouxu commented Mar 5, 2024

onur-ozkan commented Mar 5, 2024

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

bors commented Mar 5, 2024

rust-timer commented Mar 5, 2024

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

onur-ozkan commented Mar 5, 2024

jieyouxu commented Mar 5, 2024 • edited Loading

jieyouxu commented Mar 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jieyouxu Mar 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

onur-ozkan commented Mar 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jieyouxu commented Mar 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading