[tests/rustdoc] Add @files command #112960
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
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
jyn514
changed the title
jyn514
added
the
A-testsuite
|
|
|
Yes, that's what I meant when I wrote:
Sorry if it wasn't clear enough. |
|
Sounds fine to me. Actually "forbidding" something should go through an FCP, but this change seems fine: @bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2023
…, r=notriddle [tests/rustdoc] Add @files command The ``@!has`` checks is very problematic as it wouldn't catch if the file scheme is updated and the file is generated again. ``@files`` allows to ensure that the given folder contains exactly the provided entries (files and folders). I'm wondering if we should forbid the ``@!has`` for files. To be discussed after this PR I suppose. r? `@notriddle`
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2023
…, r=notriddle [tests/rustdoc] Add @files command The ```@!has``` checks is very problematic as it wouldn't catch if the file scheme is updated and the file is generated again. ```@files``` allows to ensure that the given folder contains exactly the provided entries (files and folders). I'm wondering if we should forbid the ```@!has``` for files. To be discussed after this PR I suppose. r? ``@notriddle``
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2023
…, r=notriddle [tests/rustdoc] Add @files command The ````@!has```` checks is very problematic as it wouldn't catch if the file scheme is updated and the file is generated again. ````@files```` allows to ensure that the given folder contains exactly the provided entries (files and folders). I'm wondering if we should forbid the ````@!has```` for files. To be discussed after this PR I suppose. r? ```@notriddle```
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2023
…, r=notriddle [tests/rustdoc] Add @files command The `````@!has````` checks is very problematic as it wouldn't catch if the file scheme is updated and the file is generated again. `````@files````` allows to ensure that the given folder contains exactly the provided entries (files and folders). I'm wondering if we should forbid the `````@!has````` for files. To be discussed after this PR I suppose. r? ````@notriddle````
This was referenced Jun 23, 2023
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2023
…iaskrgr Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#112616 (Improve tests on targets without unwinding) - rust-lang#112643 (Always register sized obligation for argument) - rust-lang#112740 (Add link to rustdoc book search chapter in help popover) - rust-lang#112810 (Don't ICE on unnormalized struct tail in layout computation) - rust-lang#112870 (Migrate `item_bounds` to `ty::Clause`) - rust-lang#112925 (Stop hiding const eval limit in external macros) - rust-lang#112960 ([tests/rustdoc] Add `@files` command) - rust-lang#112962 (Fix rustdoc gui tester) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
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.
The
@!haschecks is very problematic as it wouldn't catch if the file scheme is updated and the file is generated again.@filesallows to ensure that the given folder contains exactly the provided entries (files and folders).I'm wondering if we should forbid the
@!hasfor files. To be discussed after this PR I suppose.r? @notriddle