Stabilize proc_macro::Span::{file, local_file}. #140514
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
m-ou-se
added
T-libs-api
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@rfcbot merge |
|
Team member @m-ou-se has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members: No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
rfcbot
added
proposed-final-comment-period
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
m-ou-se
force-pushed
the
proc-macro-span-file
branch
from
f2b8125 to
2a053c7
Compare
5 tasks
|
I think we should ship (stable) |
rfcbot
added
the
final-comment-period
|
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
rfcbot
removed
the
proposed-final-comment-period
|
very excited to see this coming to stable, have been waiting for this for years ❤️ |
ojeda
added a commit
to ojeda/linux
that referenced
this pull request
May 2, 2025
The KUnit `#[test]` support that landed recently is very basic and does
not map the `assert*!` macros into KUnit like the doctests do, so they
panic at the moment.
Thus implement the custom mapping in a similar way to doctests, reusing
the infrastructure there.
In Rust 1.88.0, the `file()` method in `Span` may be stable [1]. However,
it was changed recently (from `SourceFile`), so we need to do something
different in previous versions. Thus create a helper for it and use it
to get the path.
With this, a failing test suite like:
#[kunit_tests(my_test_suite)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn my_first_test() {
assert_eq!(42, 43);
}
#[test]
fn my_second_test() {
assert!(42 >= 43);
}
}
will properly map back to KUnit, printing something like:
[ 1.924325] KTAP version 1
[ 1.924421] # Subtest: my_test_suite
[ 1.924506] # speed: normal
[ 1.924525] 1..2
[ 1.926385] # my_first_test: ASSERTION FAILED at rust/kernel/lib.rs:251
[ 1.926385] Expected 42 == 43 to be true, but is false
[ 1.928026] # my_first_test.speed: normal
[ 1.928075] not ok 1 my_first_test
[ 1.928723] # my_second_test: ASSERTION FAILED at rust/kernel/lib.rs:256
[ 1.928723] Expected 42 >= 43 to be true, but is false
[ 1.929834] # my_second_test.speed: normal
[ 1.929868] not ok 2 my_second_test
[ 1.930032] # my_test_suite: pass:0 fail:2 skip:0 total:2
[ 1.930153] # Totals: pass:0 fail:2 skip:0 total
Link: rust-lang/rust#140514 [1]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <[email protected]>
intel-lab-lkp
pushed a commit
to intel-lab-lkp/linux
that referenced
this pull request
May 2, 2025
The KUnit `#[test]` support that landed recently is very basic and does
not map the `assert*!` macros into KUnit like the doctests do, so they
panic at the moment.
Thus implement the custom mapping in a similar way to doctests, reusing
the infrastructure there.
In Rust 1.88.0, the `file()` method in `Span` may be stable [1]. However,
it was changed recently (from `SourceFile`), so we need to do something
different in previous versions. Thus create a helper for it and use it
to get the path.
With this, a failing test suite like:
#[kunit_tests(my_test_suite)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn my_first_test() {
assert_eq!(42, 43);
}
#[test]
fn my_second_test() {
assert!(42 >= 43);
}
}
will properly map back to KUnit, printing something like:
[ 1.924325] KTAP version 1
[ 1.924421] # Subtest: my_test_suite
[ 1.924506] # speed: normal
[ 1.924525] 1..2
[ 1.926385] # my_first_test: ASSERTION FAILED at rust/kernel/lib.rs:251
[ 1.926385] Expected 42 == 43 to be true, but is false
[ 1.928026] # my_first_test.speed: normal
[ 1.928075] not ok 1 my_first_test
[ 1.928723] # my_second_test: ASSERTION FAILED at rust/kernel/lib.rs:256
[ 1.928723] Expected 42 >= 43 to be true, but is false
[ 1.929834] # my_second_test.speed: normal
[ 1.929868] not ok 2 my_second_test
[ 1.930032] # my_test_suite: pass:0 fail:2 skip:0 total:2
[ 1.930153] # Totals: pass:0 fail:2 skip:0 total
Link: rust-lang/rust#140514 [1]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <[email protected]>
|
So this lands in the same release as @bors r+ p=1 |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
95 tasks
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2025
Stabilize proc_macro::Span::{file, local_file}.
Stabilizes this part of rust-lang#54725:
```rust
impl Span {
pub fn file(&self) -> String; // Mapped/artificial file name, for display purposes.
pub fn local_file(&self) -> Option<PathBuf>; // Real file name as it exists on the local file system.
}
```
See also the naming discussion in rust-lang#139903
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors rollup retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
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 27d6200 (parent) -> 669c1ab (this PR) Test differencesNo test diffs found Test dashboardRun cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
test-dashboard 669c1ab9677ae8dc1d7db30b75fd173d06c0c75a --output-dir test-dashboardAnd then open Job duration changes
How to interpret the job duration changes?Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (669c1ab): comparison URL. Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary 0.1%)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.
CyclesResults (primary -0.3%)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.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 769.287s -> 768.04s (-0.16%) |
rfcbot
added
finished-final-comment-period
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Stabilizes this part of #54725:
See also the naming discussion in #139903