Use compiletest timestamp to check if the tests should be rerun. #56680
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
r? @nagisa |
|
r? @nagisa (reissuing as highfive doesn't handle edits I think) |
|
I won't be able to review this till Wednesday.
…On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 21:24 Alex Crichton ***@***.*** wrote:
r? @nagisa <https://github.com/nagisa>
(reissuing as highfive doesn't handle edits I think)
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#56680 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AApc0uTWlHnMRmrV0v8R0cAkmWEjcMurks5u3sLggaJpZM4ZL-UA>
.
|
nagisa
reviewed
Dec 12, 2018
src/tools/compiletest/src/main.rs
Outdated
| @@ -678,6 +678,20 @@ fn stamp(config: &Config, testpaths: &TestPaths, revision: Option<&str>) -> Path | |||
| output_base_dir(config, testpaths, revision).join("stamp") | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| /// Walk the directory at `path` and collect timestamps of all files into `inputs`. | |||
| fn collect_timestamps(path: &PathBuf, inputs: &mut Vec<FileTime>) { | |||
| let mut entries = path.read_dir().unwrap().collect::<Vec<_>>(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This does not need to collect everything into a Vec first.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The smart thing to do here would be to use walk_dir.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought about using walk_dir, but that would be an additional dependency. If it is fine to have it, I can change the code to use walk_dir.
nagisa
reviewed
Dec 12, 2018
src/tools/compiletest/src/main.rs
Outdated
| let entry = entry.unwrap(); | ||
| let path = entry.path(); | ||
| if entry.metadata().unwrap().is_file() { | ||
| inputs.push(mtime(&path)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems unnecessary to collect into a vector here either (as the final check is iterating the vector either way), but that would mean a larger change.
|
The idea in general seems fine. It seems that the implementation could be improved. That being said, I see that it is just moving code around at this point, so I’m fine with merging this as-is. Let me know if you’d rather merge as-is, or would prefer improving the surrounding code as well. |
|
It is worth doing it only if the rest of the code is changed to use
iterators at the same time. Otherwise there is not much purpose in the
dependency.
…On Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 12:38 Vytautas Astrauskas ***@***.*** wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In src/tools/compiletest/src/main.rs
<#56680 (comment)>:
> @@ -678,6 +678,20 @@ fn stamp(config: &Config, testpaths: &TestPaths, revision: Option<&str>) -> Path
output_base_dir(config, testpaths, revision).join("stamp")
}
+/// Walk the directory at `path` and collect timestamps of all files into `inputs`.
+fn collect_timestamps(path: &PathBuf, inputs: &mut Vec<FileTime>) {
+ let mut entries = path.read_dir().unwrap().collect::<Vec<_>>();
I thought about using walk_dir, but that would be an additional
dependency. If it is fine to have it, I can change the code to use
walk_dir.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#56680 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AApc0vqTo4JWNaUZmT46KV6sYspvhknZks5u4i49gaJpZM4ZL-UA>
.
|
vakaras
changed the title
vakaras
commented
Dec 13, 2018
| @@ -678,6 +680,15 @@ fn stamp(config: &Config, testpaths: &TestPaths, revision: Option<&str>) -> Path | |||
| output_base_dir(config, testpaths, revision).join("stamp") | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| /// Return an iterator over timestamps of files in the directory at `path`. | |||
| fn collect_timestamps(path: &PathBuf) -> impl Iterator<Item=FileTime> { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nagisa Is this the refactoring you had in mind?
|
Yeah, awesome! It would now be fairly straightforward to improve @bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit a756a4a0b025d789d8bfd5ef96a71ea69ee78439 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
Sorry, I did not notice that during rebase |
Is it possible to do that while still having |
|
@bors r+
Yes, by chaining the iterators. |
|
📌 Commit 6562b2c8a07a1ab4617a2154638214c17297ac85 has been approved by |
|
🔒 Merge conflict This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again. How do I rebase?Assuming
You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial. Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Error message |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
📌 Commit d966e57 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
⌛ Testing commit d966e57 with merge c4b0c8ea1c9a9e37c693b7e267c61065983e03ec... |
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
@nagisa Do you have any idea why it failed? (I am trying to get access to a Mac machine to try to reproduce the issue.) |
|
The test failures seem very unrelated to me. Lets try a @bors retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
⌛ Testing commit d966e57 with merge c317003b4a7fd471b625836527fb7cc2898fdb21... |
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 22, 2018
Use compiletest timestamp to check if the tests should be rerun. An attempt to fix #56280 by checking if timestamps of compile test files are older than the timestamp of the stamp file. ?r nagisa
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
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.
An attempt to fix #56280 by checking if timestamps of compile test files are older than the timestamp of the stamp file.
?r nagisa