Guillaume Gomez
9f455d3246
More thorough status-quo tests for `#[coverage(..)]` In light of the stabilization push at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84605#issuecomment-2166514660, I have written some tests to more thoroughly capture the current behaviour of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute. These tests aim to capture the *current* behaviour, which is not necessarily the desired behaviour. For example, some of the error message are not great, some things that perhaps ought to cause an error do not, and recursive coverage attributes have not been implemented yet. `@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
UI Tests
This folder contains rustc's
UI tests.
Test Directives (Headers)
Typically, a UI test will have some test directives / headers which are special comments that tell compiletest how to build and intepret a test.
As part of an on-going effort to rewrite compiletest
(see https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/536), a major
change proposal to change legacy compiletest-style headers // <directive>
to ui_test-style headers
//@ <directive> was accepted (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/512.
An example directive is ignore-test. In legacy compiletest style, the header
would be written as
// ignore-test
but in ui_test style, the header would be written as
//@ ignore-test
compiletest is changed to accept only //@ directives for UI tests
(currently), and will reject and report an error if it encounters any
comments // <content> that may be parsed as an legacy compiletest-style
test header. To fix this, you should migrate to the ui_test-style header
//@ <content>.