`cargo test` compiles twice #851

nixpulvis · 2014-11-12T20:46:36Z

Running cargo test compiles the code twice before running the compiled tester binary. This is obviously irritating to look at when there are a bunch of warnings and the like, and is also much slower.

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

alexcrichton · 2014-11-12T23:03:59Z

Can you provide an example to look at? What's probably happening is that cargo is running rustc src/lib.rs and rustc --test src/lib.rs, and then after the lib finishes building it rust rustc tests/foo.rs -L target.

If you don't want to build your library with --test then you can specify test = false in the manifest.

nixpulvis · 2014-11-13T02:12:42Z

Here is a run of cargo test on a project I'm working on. As you can see it's printing the errors twice. I would expect cargo test to only run rustc --test src/lib.rs && target/parser-<something>.

> cargo test
   Compiling parser v0.0.1 (file:///Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser)
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:15:7: 21:4 error: cannot infer an appropriate lifetime due to conflicting requirements
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:15:7: 21:4 error: cannot infer an appropriate lifetime due to conflicting requirements
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:15   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:16     if s.len() >= l && s[0..l] == value {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:15   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:17       Success(box LiteralNode(s[0..l]), s[l..])
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:16     if s.len() >= l && s[0..l] == value {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:18     } else {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:17       Success(box LiteralNode(s[0..l]), s[l..])
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:19       Error
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:18     } else {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:20     }
                                             ...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:19       Error
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:20     }
                                             ...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:12:45: 22:2 note: first, the lifetime cannot outlive the block at 12:44...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:12 pub fn lit<'a>(value: &'a str) -> Lexer<'a> {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:13   let l = value.len();
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:14 
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:15   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:16     if s.len() >= l && s[0..l] == value {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:17       Success(box LiteralNode(s[0..l]), s[l..])
                                             ...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:12:45: 22:2 note: first, the lifetime cannot outlive the block at 12:44...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:12 pub fn lit<'a>(value: &'a str) -> Lexer<'a> {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:13   let l = value.len();
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:14 
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:15   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:16     if s.len() >= l && s[0..l] == value {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:17       Success(box LiteralNode(s[0..l]), s[l..])
                                             ...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:16:35: 16:40 note: ...so that captured variable `value` does not outlive the enclosing closure
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:16     if s.len() >= l && s[0..l] == value {
                                                                               ^~~~~
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:16:35: 16:40 note: ...so that captured variable `value` does not outlive the enclosing closure
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:16     if s.len() >= l && s[0..l] == value {
                                                                               ^~~~~
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:12:45: 22:2 note: but, the lifetime must be valid for the lifetime 'a as defined on the block at 12:44...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:12 pub fn lit<'a>(value: &'a str) -> Lexer<'a> {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:13   let l = value.len();
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:14 
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:15   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:16     if s.len() >= l && s[0..l] == value {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:17       Success(box LiteralNode(s[0..l]), s[l..])
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:12:45: 22:2 note: but, the lifetime must be valid for the lifetime 'a as defined on the block at 12:44...
                                             ...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:12 pub fn lit<'a>(value: &'a str) -> Lexer<'a> {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:13   let l = value.len();
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:14 
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:15   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:16     if s.len() >= l && s[0..l] == value {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:17       Success(box LiteralNode(s[0..l]), s[l..])
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:15:3: 21:4 note: ...so that it can be closed over into an object
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:15   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:16     if s.len() >= l && s[0..l] == value {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:17       Success(box LiteralNode(s[0..l]), s[l..])
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:18     } else {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:19       Error
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:20     }
                                             ...
                                             ...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:15:3: 21:4 note: ...so that it can be closed over into an object
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:15   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:16     if s.len() >= l && s[0..l] == value {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:17       Success(box LiteralNode(s[0..l]), s[l..])
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:18     } else {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:19       Error
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:20     }
                                             ...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:25:7: 31:4 error: cannot infer an appropriate lifetime due to conflicting requirements
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:25:7: 31:4 error: cannot infer an appropriate lifetime due to conflicting requirements
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:25   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:26     let r1 = (*l1).call((s,));
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:25   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:27     match r1 {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:26     let r1 = (*l1).call((s,));
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:28       Success(_, _) => return r1,
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:27     match r1 {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:29       Error => return (*l2).call((s,)),
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:28       Success(_, _) => return r1,
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:30     }
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:29       Error => return (*l2).call((s,)),
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:30     }
                                             ...
                                             ...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:24:59: 32:2 note: first, the lifetime cannot outlive the block at 24:58...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:24:59: 32:2 note: first, the lifetime cannot outlive the block at 24:58...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:24 pub fn alt<'a>(l1: Lexer<'a>, l2: Lexer<'a>) -> Lexer<'a> {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:24 pub fn alt<'a>(l1: Lexer<'a>, l2: Lexer<'a>) -> Lexer<'a> {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:25   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:25   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:26     let r1 = (*l1).call((s,));
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:26     let r1 = (*l1).call((s,));
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:27     match r1 {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:27     match r1 {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:28       Success(_, _) => return r1,
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:28       Success(_, _) => return r1,
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:29       Error => return (*l2).call((s,)),
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:29       Error => return (*l2).call((s,)),
                                             ...
                                             ...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:29:25: 29:27 note: ...so that captured variable `l2` does not outlive the enclosing closure
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:29:25: 29:27 note: ...so that captured variable `l2` does not outlive the enclosing closure
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:29       Error => return (*l2).call((s,)),
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:29       Error => return (*l2).call((s,)),
                                                                     ^~
                                                                     ^~
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:24:59: 32:2 note: but, the lifetime must be valid for the lifetime 'a as defined on the block at 24:58...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:24:59: 32:2 note: but, the lifetime must be valid for the lifetime 'a as defined on the block at 24:58...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:24 pub fn alt<'a>(l1: Lexer<'a>, l2: Lexer<'a>) -> Lexer<'a> {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:24 pub fn alt<'a>(l1: Lexer<'a>, l2: Lexer<'a>) -> Lexer<'a> {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:25   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:25   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:26     let r1 = (*l1).call((s,));
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:26     let r1 = (*l1).call((s,));
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:27     match r1 {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:27     match r1 {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:28       Success(_, _) => return r1,
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:28       Success(_, _) => return r1,
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:29       Error => return (*l2).call((s,)),
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:29       Error => return (*l2).call((s,)),
                                             ...
                                             ...
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:25:3: 31:4 note: ...so that it can be closed over into an object
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:25:3: 31:4 note: ...so that it can be closed over into an object
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:25   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:25   box |&: s: &'a str| {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:26     let r1 = (*l1).call((s,));
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:26     let r1 = (*l1).call((s,));
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:27     match r1 {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:27     match r1 {
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:28       Success(_, _) => return r1,
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:28       Success(_, _) => return r1,
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:29       Error => return (*l2).call((s,)),
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:29       Error => return (*l2).call((s,)),
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:30     }
/Users/nixpulvis/Code/parser/src/lexer.rs:30     }
                                             ...
                                             ...
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
Build failed, waiting for other jobs to finish...
Could not compile `parser`.

To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.

alexcrichton · 2014-11-13T04:36:38Z

Do you have any binaries or integration tests ([test]) specified in the manifest or discovered implicitly? If I could take a peek at the code that would also be useful.

nixpulvis · 2014-11-13T06:25:10Z

Here is the code. It's a tiny project at the moment because I can't figure out boxed unboxed closures 😜 but testing it with cargo test will yield duplicate warnings on master.

There are #[test]s.

alexcrichton · 2014-11-13T06:33:01Z

Hm, did you mean to include a link in there?

nixpulvis · 2014-11-13T06:34:12Z

~~Oh man, it's going to be a long night, already losing my mind. Here you go. https://github.com/nixpulvis/parser~~

alexcrichton · 2014-11-13T07:02:31Z

Aha! That definitely shouldn't be compiling twice, thanks @nixpulvis! I'll take a look into this hopefully soon.

nixpulvis · 2014-11-13T07:03:58Z

❤️

SimonSapin · 2014-11-14T15:11:23Z

Isn’t the other compile a dependency of running rustdoc --test? You can disable this with doctest = false in Cargo.toml, but it would be nice if Cargo did that implicitly when it can figure out that the source does not contain any doctest. (Though I’m not sure how it would do that, maybe split rustdoc --test into doctest collection (which doesn’t require the crate to be built) and doctest compile/run?)

nixpulvis · 2014-11-14T16:58:17Z

I don't think doctests should be opt in. I like that they are part of cargo test. It's just hard to read the warnings are errors as is.

This might be a bad idea, but maybe it actually might make sense to allow rustc to include doctests when passes an additional flag.

SimonSapin · 2014-11-14T17:11:16Z

I don’t mean making doctest opt-in, only to avoid running zero doctests when Cargo can determine there are indeed zero, if that can be determine quickly.

nixpulvis · 2014-11-14T17:12:47Z

But then the moment you add doctests then your back into the same problem.

SimonSapin · 2014-11-14T17:19:10Z

I don’t see the problem. When you add doctests you don’t have zero doctests anymore and so Cargo should not detect that you have zero doctests anymore (again, assuming this detection is feasible) and would start running doctests again. This magic "detection" would run every time you run cargo test.

nixpulvis · 2014-11-14T17:20:46Z

The problem is with the original problem of showing two compilations right next to each other with all their warnings and errors.

SimonSapin · 2014-11-14T17:33:47Z

Ah, sorry I misunderstood. Yes indeed. I believe the reason for that is that rustdoc --test need a library to link against, but rustc --test creates an executable with the test harness, not a library.

alexcrichton · 2014-11-16T01:31:14Z

Ah yes, @SimonSapin is right, I forgot about doc tests! For now I don't think Cargo will try to detect the presence or non-presence of doc tests as it would involve a dependency on rustdoc itself. If you'd like to just see one set of warnings at a time you can pass -j1 to ensure only one crate is built at a time. Otherwise this is currently working as intended.

nixpulvis · 2014-11-16T03:40:21Z

This is going to be a pain point for adoption and usability.

Just my 2 cents.

drewm1980 · 2014-11-21T16:01:38Z

I was experiencing this problem, or something similar. When I would run "cargo test" the tests defined in my library are getting run by the main executable as well as in the library, so they ran twice. Adding "test = false" for the library in my manifest fixed it.

Thanks Alex!

It doesn't matter now, but here is my code:
https://github.com/drewm1980/rust-omr

jimmycuadra · 2015-03-26T04:45:01Z

I think this is a poor user experience. For quite a while I've been dealing with duplicate output from cargo test and assumed it was just a bug that was going to get fixed. Now that I've found this issue, I don't think it's at all obvious that the duplicate output is coming from attempting to run non-existent doctests. If there really isn't a way to disable running doctests when there are none, it'd be great if there were an obvious warning message (or some other form of easily discoverable documentation) that explains why the output shows up twice by default.

SimonSapin · 2015-03-26T07:21:01Z

@jimmycuadra You can add doctest = false in the [lib] section of your Cargo.toml. (Though I still wish Cargo would do better by default.)

jimmycuadra · 2015-03-26T08:16:54Z

Yes, that is what I did. It's just totally non-obvious that that's why you see double output by default.

nixpulvis · 2015-08-22T18:46:50Z

This is still painful FWIW, getting a lot of unused warnings, and double errors on failed compiles.

jimmycuadra · 2015-08-22T22:27:07Z

@alexcrichton I understand the technical reason why this happens now, but since it is still a confusing user experience (as noted by duplicates of this issue in various forms continuing to be opened), would you be amenable to either reopening this issue, or me opening a new issue specifically for discussion and tracking of possible ways to address user confusion about the output?

alexcrichton · 2015-08-23T01:17:38Z

@jimmycuadra that's tracked by #1854

lilith · 2016-11-17T16:59:28Z

cargo test --lib fixes this for me, but not doctest = false under [lib]. Using nightly- 2016-11-04. Is this expected or should doctest=false always eliminate duplicate output?

(FWIW, I ignored duplicates for three months in hopes the "bug" would be fixed. If there's a pain points FAQ/wiki I'd be glad to contribute to it).

alexcrichton · 2016-11-17T17:53:47Z

@nathanaeljones do you have integration tests (tests/*.rs) or binaries? In that case cargo test would also have to build the library for those targets.

lilith · 2016-11-17T17:57:01Z

Yes, I do. That makes sense, thanks!

rust-lang/cargo#851

a13xb · 2018-12-06T13:34:25Z

I'd echo the user experience complaints. As a newcomer, the current behaviour (still the case as of 1.30) is extremely baffling. I don't think it should be considered "fixed".

Syndog · 2020-03-05T08:53:56Z

I'm adding my voice to the chorus with this. Duplicate messages by default makes an extremely poor and unprofessional user experience. Though a minor issue, the fact that it continues to be pointedly ignored after so many years (now 1.41.0) only exacerbates matters. It reveals an administrative problem that doesn't speak well for Rust as a project.

pauljherring · 2020-07-12T20:10:02Z

Hello, from Jul 2020; 6 years later, and still a thing.

As with @lilith, [lib]doctest = false didn't work, cargo test --lib did.

Iron-E · 2020-12-30T18:37:34Z

Latest nightly here. This makes it pretty difficult to find unique errors that I need to fix in the middle of a refactor:

Especially when I don't just want to test just by --lib, I really do want to test everything.

nixpulvis · 2021-01-25T19:09:32Z

@alexcrichton @SimonSapin I realize that this issue thread is kind of messy and apologize for that, but I do not feel like it should be considered closed. Would it be possible to reopen? or create a new issue without the mess for this bad user experience?

ehuss · 2021-01-25T19:25:27Z

@nixpulvis I don't think this should be reopened because due to the way Rust testing works, the library fundamentally needs to be built twice. However, we have been planning to add some kind of deduplicate support. I realize we never opened an issue to track that, so I have opened #9104.

nixpulvis · 2021-01-25T20:04:40Z

@ehuss awesome, thanks for doing that.

alexcrichton closed this as completed Nov 16, 2014

alexcrichton mentioned this issue Dec 9, 2014

duplicate output #1023

Closed

alexcrichton mentioned this issue Apr 19, 2015

Cargo test prints warnings and errors twice #1534

Closed

lilyball mentioned this issue May 2, 2015

cargo test prints build errors twice, mixed together, as it runs rustc twice in parallel #1569

Closed

alexcrichton mentioned this issue Jun 15, 2015

Garbled compile errors when running cargo test #1717

Closed

alexcrichton mentioned this issue Jun 16, 2016

cargo test shows the error by twice #2785

Closed

alexcrichton mentioned this issue Sep 28, 2016

Don't display error messages multiple times when building test crates #3128

Closed

alexcrichton mentioned this issue Oct 6, 2016

Duplicate message on compilation errors #3167

Closed

alexcrichton mentioned this issue Jan 12, 2017

Duplicate error messages #3531

Closed

alexcrichton mentioned this issue Apr 18, 2018

Duplicate compiler errors #5388

Closed

alexcrichton mentioned this issue May 23, 2018

cargo check --all-targets can generate duplicate messages. #5561

Closed

trishume mentioned this issue May 23, 2018

Gather slow workflows from stakeholders rust-lang/rustc-perf#232

Closed

worace added a commit to worace/rust-wkt that referenced this issue Jul 2, 2018

Bump version and temp disable doctest to avoid double warning output

859e078

rust-lang/cargo#851

worace added a commit to worace/rust-wkt that referenced this issue Jul 6, 2018

Bump version and temp disable doctest to avoid double warning output

ebb2f4d

rust-lang/cargo#851

worace added a commit to worace/rust-wkt that referenced this issue Jul 9, 2018

Bump version and temp disable doctest to avoid double warning output

538abcb

rust-lang/cargo#851

kazk mentioned this issue Jul 19, 2018

Rust errors look messy codewars/codewars-runner-cli#630

Closed

mash-graz mentioned this issue Dec 1, 2020

Verify checksum of static lib in build script denoland/rusty_v8#545

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

`cargo test` compiles twice #851

`cargo test` compiles twice #851

nixpulvis commented Nov 12, 2014

alexcrichton commented Nov 12, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 13, 2014

alexcrichton commented Nov 13, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 13, 2014

alexcrichton commented Nov 13, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 13, 2014 •

edited

Loading

alexcrichton commented Nov 13, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 13, 2014

SimonSapin commented Nov 14, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 14, 2014

SimonSapin commented Nov 14, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 14, 2014

SimonSapin commented Nov 14, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 14, 2014

SimonSapin commented Nov 14, 2014

alexcrichton commented Nov 16, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 16, 2014

drewm1980 commented Nov 21, 2014

jimmycuadra commented Mar 26, 2015

SimonSapin commented Mar 26, 2015

jimmycuadra commented Mar 26, 2015

nixpulvis commented Aug 22, 2015

jimmycuadra commented Aug 22, 2015

alexcrichton commented Aug 23, 2015

lilith commented Nov 17, 2016

alexcrichton commented Nov 17, 2016

lilith commented Nov 17, 2016

a13xb commented Dec 6, 2018

Syndog commented Mar 5, 2020

pauljherring commented Jul 12, 2020

Iron-E commented Dec 30, 2020

nixpulvis commented Jan 25, 2021

ehuss commented Jan 25, 2021

nixpulvis commented Jan 25, 2021

cargo test compiles twice #851

cargo test compiles twice #851

Comments

nixpulvis commented Nov 12, 2014

alexcrichton commented Nov 12, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 13, 2014

alexcrichton commented Nov 13, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 13, 2014

alexcrichton commented Nov 13, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 13, 2014 • edited Loading

alexcrichton commented Nov 13, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 13, 2014

SimonSapin commented Nov 14, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 14, 2014

SimonSapin commented Nov 14, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 14, 2014

SimonSapin commented Nov 14, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 14, 2014

SimonSapin commented Nov 14, 2014

alexcrichton commented Nov 16, 2014

nixpulvis commented Nov 16, 2014

drewm1980 commented Nov 21, 2014

jimmycuadra commented Mar 26, 2015

SimonSapin commented Mar 26, 2015

jimmycuadra commented Mar 26, 2015

nixpulvis commented Aug 22, 2015

jimmycuadra commented Aug 22, 2015

alexcrichton commented Aug 23, 2015

lilith commented Nov 17, 2016

alexcrichton commented Nov 17, 2016

lilith commented Nov 17, 2016

a13xb commented Dec 6, 2018

Syndog commented Mar 5, 2020

pauljherring commented Jul 12, 2020

Iron-E commented Dec 30, 2020

nixpulvis commented Jan 25, 2021

ehuss commented Jan 25, 2021

nixpulvis commented Jan 25, 2021

`cargo test` compiles twice #851

`cargo test` compiles twice #851

nixpulvis commented Nov 13, 2014 •

edited

Loading