Skip to content

Drop compiletest legacy directive check #131392

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 8, 2024

Conversation

jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

@jieyouxu jieyouxu commented Oct 8, 2024

Sufficient time has passed (> 6 months) since we migrated from // to //@, so let's drop the
legacy directive check as it causes friction due to false positives.

As a side-effect, dropping the legacy directive check simplifies the directive scanning logic.

The legacy directive check was originally added to help people be aware of the migration.

Blocker for #131382 cc @ehuss.

Can be reviewed by any compiler/bootstrap reviewer.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 8, 2024

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) labels Oct 8, 2024
@jieyouxu jieyouxu added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Oct 8, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@jieyouxu jieyouxu added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Oct 8, 2024
// specify them manually in every test file. (Some of the comments below have been copied over
// from the old `tests/run-make/coverage-reports/Makefile`, which no longer exists.)
//
// FIXME(jieyouxu): I feel like there's a better way to do this, leaving for later.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is currently the least-awful way to achieve the desired effect, because there's no good way to hook into the ignore system. But with some appropriate refactoring there should definitely be a better approach.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, just left a note for myself.

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member Author

jieyouxu commented Oct 8, 2024

The test failure is genuine in that the test uses //@ before CHECK: FileCheck directives, meaning that test never actually checked anything. I think the previous directive handling logic had some problems... I know this distinction is definitely confusing because nobody in the original PR noticed. EDIT: apparently FileCheck doesn't even care about the comment prefix, //@ and // isn't even a meaningful distinction to FileCheck, it just looks for the CHECK:... But in terms of compiletest this should still error because we want to make sure we can check for unknown compiletest directives.

Sufficient time has passed (> 6 months) since we migrated from `//` to
`//@`, so let's drop the legacy directive check as it causes friction
due to false positives.
@jieyouxu jieyouxu force-pushed the remove-legacy-directive-check branch from 6fd3640 to b81a3c8 Compare October 8, 2024 07:54
@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member Author

jieyouxu commented Oct 8, 2024

Dropped the test changes and removal of early-return as they should be in follow-up PRs. This PR is intended to only remove the legacy directive check.
@rustbot ready

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Oct 8, 2024
@Urgau
Copy link
Member

Urgau commented Oct 8, 2024

LGTM. r=me after CI pass

@Urgau
Copy link
Member

Urgau commented Oct 8, 2024

r? @Urgau
@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Oct 8, 2024

📌 Commit b81a3c8 has been approved by Urgau

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Oct 8, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 8, 2024
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 3 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#131348 (More `rustc_infer` cleanups)
 - rust-lang#131392 (Drop compiletest legacy directive check)
 - rust-lang#131395 (Add a mailmap entry for bjorn3)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 46f821a into rust-lang:master Oct 8, 2024
6 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.83.0 milestone Oct 8, 2024
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 8, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#131392 - jieyouxu:remove-legacy-directive-check, r=Urgau

Drop compiletest legacy directive check

Sufficient time has passed (> 6 months) since we migrated from `//` to `//`@`,` so let's drop the
legacy directive check as it causes friction due to false positives.

As a side-effect, dropping the legacy directive check simplifies the directive scanning logic.

The legacy directive check was originally added to help people be aware of the migration.

Blocker for rust-lang#131382 cc `@ehuss.`

Can be reviewed by any compiler/bootstrap reviewer.
@jieyouxu jieyouxu deleted the remove-legacy-directive-check branch October 8, 2024 18:39
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2024
compiletest: Remove the one thing that was checking a directive's `original_line`

This special handling of `ignore-tidy*` was introduced during the migration to `//`@`` directives (rust-lang#120881), and has become unnecessary after the subsequent removal of the legacy directive check (rust-lang#131392).
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2024
compiletest: Remove the one thing that was checking a directive's `original_line`

This special handling of `ignore-tidy*` was introduced during the migration to `//`@`` directives (rust-lang#120881), and has become unnecessary after the subsequent removal of the legacy directive check (rust-lang#131392).
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#131585 - Zalathar:original-line, r=jieyouxu

compiletest: Remove the one thing that was checking a directive's `original_line`

This special handling of `ignore-tidy*` was introduced during the migration to `//`@`` directives (rust-lang#120881), and has become unnecessary after the subsequent removal of the legacy directive check (rust-lang#131392).
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants