Skip to content
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

compiletest: properly handle revisioned run-rustfix tests #123601

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 7, 2024

Conversation

jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

@jieyouxu jieyouxu commented Apr 7, 2024

Before this PR, if you have a revisioned //@ run-rustfix test like //@[foo] run-rustfix, you would run into an error saying crate name cannot contain . characters because the fixed test file trying to be compiled is named <test-name>.<revision>.fixed, from which rustc infers the crate name to be <test-name>.<revision> which is not a valid crate name.

This PR fixes the problem by constructing a synthetic crate name from <test-name>.<revision>, by

  1. replacing all - with _, and
  2. replacing all . with __

and pass that constructed crate name with --crate-name to rustc to compile the fixed file.

Fixes #123596.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 7, 2024

r? @pnkfelix

rustbot has assigned @pnkfelix.
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

@rustbot rustbot added A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Apr 7, 2024
@jieyouxu jieyouxu changed the title Properly handle revisioned run-rustfix tests compiletest: properly handle revisioned run-rustfix tests Apr 7, 2024
@rust-cloud-vms rust-cloud-vms bot force-pushed the compiletest-run-rustfix-revisions branch from d042ee9 to de3857e Compare April 7, 2024 17:06
Copy link
Member

@WaffleLapkin WaffleLapkin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!
r? WaffleLapkin
r=me with green CI

@rustbot rustbot assigned WaffleLapkin and unassigned pnkfelix Apr 7, 2024
@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member Author

jieyouxu commented Apr 7, 2024

@bors r=@WaffleLapkin

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 7, 2024

📌 Commit de3857e has been approved by WaffleLapkin

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors 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 Apr 7, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 7, 2024

⌛ Testing commit de3857e with merge 9d5cdf7...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 7, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: WaffleLapkin
Pushing 9d5cdf7 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Apr 7, 2024
@bors bors merged commit 9d5cdf7 into rust-lang:master Apr 7, 2024
12 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.79.0 milestone Apr 7, 2024
@jieyouxu jieyouxu deleted the compiletest-run-rustfix-revisions branch April 7, 2024 20:31
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (9d5cdf7): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.8% [0.3%, 1.5%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

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)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-3.9% [-5.5%, -2.7%] 5
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.7% [-5.1%, -0.8%] 51
All ❌✅ (primary) -3.9% [-5.5%, -2.7%] 5

Cycles

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)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-3.1% [-3.6%, -2.5%] 6
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 667.569s -> 665.855s (-0.26%)
Artifact size: 318.50 MiB -> 318.49 MiB (-0.00%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

compiletest: run-rustfix and revisions have broken interactions
6 participants