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: Require //~ annotations even if error-pattern is specified #139137

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 3, 2025

Conversation

petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

@petrochenkov petrochenkov commented Mar 30, 2025

This is continuation of #138865 with some help from #139100.

error-pattern annotations that duplicate the newly added //~ annotations are removed, other error-patterns are not touched yet.

In exceptional cases //@ compile-flags: --error-format=human can be used to opt out of these checks.
In this PR I only had to use the opt out 3 times:

  • tests/ui/parser/utf16-{be,le}-without-bom.rs - there are too many errors that are nearly identical (modulo location), because an error is reported on every second symbol
  • tests/ui-fulldeps/missing-rustc-driver-error.rs - the errors list various rustc crate dependencies and may unexpectedly invalidate on random rustc changes

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 30, 2025

r? @nnethercote

rustbot has assigned @nnethercote.
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-compiletest Area: The compiletest test runner A-rustc-dev-guide Area: rustc-dev-guide A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc PG-exploit-mitigations Project group: Exploit mitigations 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. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Mar 30, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 30, 2025

Some changes occurred in tests/ui/sanitizer

cc @rust-lang/project-exploit-mitigations, @rcvalle

The rustc-dev-guide subtree was changed. If this PR only touches the dev guide consider submitting a PR directly to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide otherwise thank you for updating the dev guide with your changes.

cc @BoxyUwU, @jieyouxu, @Kobzol

Some changes occurred in src/tools/compiletest

cc @jieyouxu

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

r? jieyouxu

@rustbot rustbot assigned jieyouxu and unassigned nnethercote Mar 30, 2025
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@bors

This comment was marked as resolved.

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

jieyouxu commented Apr 1, 2025

I'll look at this early tomorrow.

Copy link
Member

@jieyouxu jieyouxu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, changes LGTM. Feel free to r=me after fixing the test conflict.

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

jieyouxu commented Apr 2, 2025

@bors rollup=never p=10 (merge-conflict prone)

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

jieyouxu commented Apr 2, 2025

@rustbot author

@rustbot 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 Apr 2, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 2, 2025

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors r=jieyouxu

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 2, 2025

📌 Commit ecba3f8 has been approved by jieyouxu

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-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Apr 2, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 2, 2025

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Apr 2, 2025
@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors r=jieyouxu

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 2, 2025

📌 Commit 954d944 has been approved by jieyouxu

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 2, 2025
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 2, 2025
compiletest: Require `//~` annotations even if `error-pattern` is specified

This is continuation of rust-lang#138865 with some help from rust-lang#139100.

`error-pattern` annotations that duplicate the newly added `//~` annotations are removed, other `error-pattern`s are not touched yet.

In exceptional cases `//@ compile-flags: --error-format=human` can be used to opt out of these checks.
In this PR I only had to use the opt out 3 times:
- `tests/ui/parser/utf16-{be,le}-without-bom.rs` - there are too many errors that are nearly identical (modulo location), because an error is reported on every second symbol
- `tests/ui-fulldeps/missing-rustc-driver-error.rs` - the errors list various rustc crate dependencies and may unexpectedly invalidate on random rustc changes
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 2, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 954d944 with merge faac314...

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 2, 2025

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Apr 2, 2025
Can be fixed properly later by adding a new flag for non-exhaustive line annotation checking
@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors r=jieyouxu

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 3, 2025

📌 Commit 4916d44 has been approved by jieyouxu

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 3, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 3, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 4916d44 with merge 946aea0...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Apr 3, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing 946aea0 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Apr 3, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 946aea0 into rust-lang:master Apr 3, 2025
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.88.0 milestone Apr 3, 2025
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Apr 3, 2025

What is this? This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing e0883a2 (parent) -> 946aea0 (this PR)

Test differences

No test diffs found

Job duration changes

  1. dist-x86_64-apple: 9217.9s -> 11551.6s (25.3%)
  2. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19-1: 5365.6s -> 5656.6s (5.4%)
  3. aarch64-apple: 3785.4s -> 3972.2s (4.9%)
  4. mingw-check: 1266.9s -> 1327.3s (4.8%)
  5. dist-x86_64-msvc-alt: 7474.4s -> 7820.1s (4.6%)
  6. arm-android: 5451.1s -> 5702.4s (4.6%)
  7. dist-aarch64-apple: 4406.4s -> 4599.4s (4.4%)
  8. aarch64-gnu-debug: 4062.7s -> 4236.5s (4.3%)
  9. i686-gnu-2: 6370.9s -> 6633.7s (4.1%)
  10. dist-i686-linux: 5952.3s -> 6179.3s (3.8%)
How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (946aea0): 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 (primary -2.5%, secondary -2.1%)

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)
-2.5% [-2.5%, -2.5%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.1% [-2.5%, -1.8%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.5% [-2.5%, -2.5%] 1

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: 777.235s -> 776.226s (-0.13%)
Artifact size: 365.89 MiB -> 365.90 MiB (0.00%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-compiletest Area: The compiletest test runner A-rustc-dev-guide Area: rustc-dev-guide A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. PG-exploit-mitigations Project group: Exploit mitigations 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. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants