More status-quo tests for the #[coverage(..)] attribute
#126659
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
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
test-coverage-attr
branch
from
4870b7d to
7b31692
Compare
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
test-coverage-attr
branch
from
7b31692 to
71fc321
Compare
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
test-coverage-attr
branch
from
71fc321 to
425cded
Compare
These tests reveal some inconsistencies that are tracked by <rust-lang#126658>.
Zalathar
force-pushed
the
test-coverage-attr
branch
from
425cded to
ebb3aa0
Compare
|
@bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 20, 2024
…illot More status-quo tests for the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute Follow-up to rust-lang#126621, after I found even more weird corner-cases in the handling of the coverage attribute. These tests reveal some inconsistencies that are tracked by rust-lang#126658.
This was referenced Jun 20, 2024
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 20, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#126380 (Add std Xtensa targets support) - rust-lang#126636 (Resolve Clippy `f16` and `f128` `unimplemented!`/`FIXME`s ) - rust-lang#126659 (More status-quo tests for the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute) - rust-lang#126711 (Make Option::as_[mut_]slice const) - rust-lang#126717 (Clean up some comments near `use` declarations) - rust-lang#126719 (Fix assertion failure for some `Expect` diagnostics.) - rust-lang#126730 (Add opaque type corner case test) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 20, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#126659 - Zalathar:test-coverage-attr, r=cjgillot More status-quo tests for the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute Follow-up to rust-lang#126621, after I found even more weird corner-cases in the handling of the coverage attribute. These tests reveal some inconsistencies that are tracked by rust-lang#126658.
compiler-errors
added a commit
to compiler-errors/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2024
coverage: Overhaul validation of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute This PR makes sweeping changes to how the (currently-unstable) coverage attribute is validated: - Multiple coverage attributes on the same item/expression are now treated as an error. - The attribute must always be `#[coverage(off)]` or `#[coverage(on)]`, and the error messages for this are more consistent. - A trailing comma is still allowed after off/on, since that's part of the normal attribute syntax. - Some places that silently ignored a coverage attribute now produce an error instead. - These cases were all clearly bugs. - Some places that ignored a coverage attribute (with a warning) now produce an error instead. - These were originally added as lints, but I don't think it makes much sense to knowingly allow new attributes to be used in meaningless places. - Some of these errors might soon disappear, if it's easy to extend recursive coverage attributes to things like modules and impl blocks. --- One of the goals of this PR is to lay a more solid foundation for making the coverage attribute recursive, so that it applies to all nested functions/closures instead of just the one it is directly attached to. Fixes rust-lang#126658. This PR incorporates rust-lang#126659, which adds more tests for validation of the coverage attribute. `@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#126682 - Zalathar:coverage-attr, r=lcnr coverage: Overhaul validation of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute This PR makes sweeping changes to how the (currently-unstable) coverage attribute is validated: - Multiple coverage attributes on the same item/expression are now treated as an error. - The attribute must always be `#[coverage(off)]` or `#[coverage(on)]`, and the error messages for this are more consistent. - A trailing comma is still allowed after off/on, since that's part of the normal attribute syntax. - Some places that silently ignored a coverage attribute now produce an error instead. - These cases were all clearly bugs. - Some places that ignored a coverage attribute (with a warning) now produce an error instead. - These were originally added as lints, but I don't think it makes much sense to knowingly allow new attributes to be used in meaningless places. - Some of these errors might soon disappear, if it's easy to extend recursive coverage attributes to things like modules and impl blocks. --- One of the goals of this PR is to lay a more solid foundation for making the coverage attribute recursive, so that it applies to all nested functions/closures instead of just the one it is directly attached to. Fixes rust-lang#126658. This PR incorporates rust-lang#126659, which adds more tests for validation of the coverage attribute. `@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
Follow-up to #126621, after I found even more weird corner-cases in the handling of the coverage attribute.
These tests reveal some inconsistencies that are tracked by #126658.