-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13k
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
Revert #134209 #134843
Revert #134209 #134843
Conversation
…s, r=jieyouxu" Unfortunately, the present logic is not quite right because `Step`s are allowed to register arbitrary *aliases* (e.g. `library/test` is aliases to `test`), which means that we incorrectly warn on ``` ./x test --exclude test ``` producing ``` WARNING: '/home/joe/repos/rust/test' does not exist. ``` even though this alias (`test`) is indeed a known and handled `--exclude` filter. A proper fix will need to do something like "collect all eligible `Step`s then check `should_run(exclude)`" in order to determine if the exclude filter will trigger for the steps. (Courtesy of jyn pointing this out.) This reverts commit 6cf13b0, reversing changes made to 2846699.
This PR modifies If appropriate, please update |
in case it helps, this is not actually specific to the Step - bootstrap allows doing this for arbitrary steps rust/src/bootstrap/src/core/builder/mod.rs Line 263 in 27258c6
|
Right... |
There is no problem other than printing warning, right? I was aware of this already (see #134209 (comment)). It's a warning info not error message, if we think it doesn't make sense we can remove it or print that in verbose mode only. |
// Never return top-level path here as it would break `--skip` | ||
// logic on rustc's internal test framework which is utilized | ||
// by compiletest. | ||
p | ||
}) |
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.
This is exactly why we don't include top-level paths here.
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.
I think the issue is that --exclude also works for non-compiletest managed test suites, like library/test or library/core.
Anyway, I'll have to look at this a bit more, because I think there's a distinction between how tests/* suites are matched versus how e.g. library/test is matched in --exclude logic...
Closing because we can probably just drop the warning |
…zkan bootstrap: drop warning for top-level test suite path check due to false positives The current top-level test suite directory does not exist warning logic doesn't quite handle the more exotic path suffix matches that test filters seem to accept (e.g. `library/test` can be matched with `--exclude test`), so avoid warning on non-existent top-level test suites for now. To avoid false positives, we probably need to query test `Step`s for their `should_run(exclude_filter)` logic. This retains the fix for the Windows path handling (unlike rust-lang#134843). r? `@onur-ozkan`
…zkan bootstrap: drop warning for top-level test suite path check due to false positives The current top-level test suite directory does not exist warning logic doesn't quite handle the more exotic path suffix matches that test filters seem to accept (e.g. `library/test` can be matched with `--exclude test`), so avoid warning on non-existent top-level test suites for now. To avoid false positives, we probably need to query test `Step`s for their `should_run(exclude_filter)` logic. This retains the fix for the Windows path handling (unlike rust-lang#134843). r? `@onur-ozkan`
Reverts validate --skip and --exclude paths #134209.
Reopens #134198.
Unfortunately, the present logic is not quite right because
Step
s are allowed to register arbitrary aliases (e.g.library/test
is aliased totest
), which means that we incorrectly warn onproducing
even though this alias (
test
) is indeed a known and handled--exclude
filter.A proper fix will need to do something like "collect all eligible
Step
s then checkshould_run(exclude)
" in order to determine if the exclude filter will trigger for the steps. (Courtesy of jyn pointing this out.)I don't quite have the time to investigate the proper fix atm, so I am posting a revert for now (unless someone wants to look at it).
This reverts commit 6cf13b0, reversing changes made to 2846699.
r? @onur-ozkan