Improve coverage test naming #32443
Improve coverage test naming #32443
Conversation
|
cc @compnerd |
| // RUN: cd %t/foo/bar | ||
| // RUN: mkdir -p %t/root/nested | ||
| // RUN: echo "func coverage() {}" > %t/root/nested/coverage_relative_path.swift | ||
| // RUN: cd %t/root |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Really we only needed 2 levels of nesting to validate we had the absolute path in the output in the first case
| // | ||
| // ABSOLUTE: @__llvm_coverage_mapping = {{.*"\\01.*foo.*bar.*baz.*coverage_relative_path\.swift}} | ||
| // ABSOLUTE: @__llvm_coverage_mapping = {{.*"\\01.*root.*nested.*coverage_relative_path\.swift}} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since this doesn't check for / vs \ in paths, we don't need to force the command line to only contain /
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does it matter how the path is encoded? I suspect not, but, since I don't know definitively, I'll ask.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not as far as I know but I won't claim to be an expert here
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
the windows failure here is from a diff test, known issue? |
|
@compnerd Mind checking up on this one |
|
@swift-ci please test Windows platform |
|
windows failure looks unrelated 😬 |
|
The CI bots seem green, the build failure is: CC: @JDevlieghere in case Jonas has ideas |
|
@swift-ci please test |
I think this was a race between PR from @hamishknight and @varungandhi-apple backporting the explicit std::string conversion. |
#32434 (review)