Skip to content
New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

test: Migrate some json tests to snapbox #14402

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 15, 2024
Merged

test: Migrate some json tests to snapbox #14402

merged 3 commits into from
Aug 15, 2024

Conversation

epage
Copy link
Contributor

@epage epage commented Aug 14, 2024

What does this PR try to resolve?

This is part of #14039

How should we test and review this PR?

Additional information

This was unblocked because of assert-rs/snapbox#358

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Aug 14, 2024

r? @weihanglo

rustbot has assigned @weihanglo.
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 the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Aug 14, 2024
@@ -1879,24 +1879,25 @@ fn doc_message_format() {

p.cargo("doc --message-format=json")
.with_status(101)
.with_json_contains_unordered(
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does the snapbox patch now correctly handle unordered JSON lines, or this test doesn't need unordered assertion?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If by "now correctly" you mean "implicitly", then no, as that would not be correct. I am not seeing anything in this test case that needs .unordered() applied.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I meant to comment under doc_json_artifacts but that one doesn't seem to need unordered either.

@weihanglo
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

Thanks!

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 15, 2024

📌 Commit be5a41d has been approved by weihanglo

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 Aug 15, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 15, 2024

⌛ Testing commit be5a41d with merge 9a170d7...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 15, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: weihanglo
Pushing 9a170d7 to master...

@bors bors merged commit 9a170d7 into rust-lang:master Aug 15, 2024
24 checks passed
@epage epage deleted the snap branch August 15, 2024 21:56
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 17, 2024
Update cargo

8 commits in 2f738d617c6ead388f899802dd1a7fd66858a691..ba8b39413c74d08494f94a7542fe79aa636e1661
2024-08-13 10:57:52 +0000 to 2024-08-16 22:48:57 +0000
- feat(update): Report when incompatible-rust-version packages are selected (rust-lang/cargo#14401)
- test: Migrate old_cargos to snapbox (rust-lang/cargo#14410)
- Correct diagnostic for `TomlDebugInfo` (rust-lang/cargo#14413)
- Add `--lockfile-path` flag (rust-lang/cargo#14326)
- test: Migrate some json tests to snapbox (rust-lang/cargo#14402)
- Implement base paths (RFC 3529) 1/n: path dep and patch support (rust-lang/cargo#14360)
- doc: convert comments to rustdoc in workspace (rust-lang/cargo#14397)
- Fix MSRV for workspace .package and .dependencies (rust-lang/cargo#14400)

r? ghost
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.82.0 milestone Aug 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants