Don't skip all directories when tidy-checking

[WaffleLapkin]

This fixes a regression from #108772 which basically made it that tidy style checks only README.md and COMPILER_TESTS.md.

[rustbot]

r? @ozkanonur

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[jyn514]

Whoops, sorry 😅 good catch.

I don't think we need to pass is_dir into every check though, that calls path.metadata a lot more than it used to. It should be enough to call path.is_dir in the style check only.

[WaffleLapkin]

that calls path.metadata a lot more than it used to

The code never calls path.metadata... e.file_type().map(|ft| ft.is_dir()).unwrap_or(false) is all just field accesses, if I'm not missing something.

[jyn514]

Ah I see, walkdir has already called metadata() before us and it's passing us that info through the file type.

Ok, I still have a mild preference for the smaller change, but this is fine too - r=me with or without it.

[onur-ozkan]

lgtm

[onur-ozkan]

I still have a mild preference for the smaller change, but this is fine too - r=me with or without it.

@WaffleLapkin Are you planning to make any change on the PR? I will queue the PR otherwise.

Also please squash the commits.

[WaffleLapkin]

WaffleLapkin Are you planning to make any change on the PR? I will queue the PR otherwise.

@ozkanonur I don't... Maybe a better solution would be to pass the ...Entry everywhere, but maybe not, idk. Anyway don't really want to work on this atm.

@bors r=jyn514,ozkanonur

[bors]

📌 Commit 285fec8 has been approved by jyn514,ozkanonur

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors r- rollup=iffy
looks like more cleanup is needed now

fmt check
tidy check
tidy: Skipping binary file check, read-only filesystem
Error: tidy error: /checkout/compiler/rustc_error_codes/src/error_codes/E0080.md:19: line longer than 80 chars
Error: tidy error: /checkout/src/doc/unstable-book/src/compiler-flags/sanitizer.md:216: unexplained "```ignore" doctest; try one:

* make the test actually pass, by adding necessary imports and declarations, or
* use "```text", if the code is not Rust code, or
* use "```compile_fail,Ennnn", if the code is expected to fail at compile time, or
* use "```should_panic", if the code is expected to fail at run time, or
* use "```no_run", if the code should type-check but not necessary linkable/runnable, or
* explain it like "```ignore (cannot-test-this-because-xxxx)", if the annotation cannot be avoided.


Error: tidy error: /checkout/compiler/rustc_mir_build/src/build/expr/as_rvalue.rs:571: \
Use a single space after dots in comments.
Error: tidy error: /checkout/tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/typeid-equality-by-subtyping.rs:20: trailing whitespace

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/actions/runs/4497868288/jobs/7913878216#step:26:1777

#109513

[WaffleLapkin]

I've blessed tidy, but note that some PRs from #109513 are still not merged and conflict with this...

@bors r=jyn514,ozkanonur

[bors]

📌 Commit 1b1410df127034f0c754350f54189d5c3d4db858 has been approved by jyn514,ozkanonur

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 1b1410df127034f0c754350f54189d5c3d4db858 with merge 0fa3f2220f21ffb8dce4e24ebc8895fc8ccf8997...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit b7a0b06f6bc849011753ab7b2919d013240c9157 with merge 597f4b0cf55e5c04a0c62358142748d45f79d97f...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[WaffleLapkin]

@bors retry

[jyn514]

@bors r- r+

retry means something different :( not sure why it didn't print the commit it was going to retry

[bors]

📌 Commit 904dd2c has been approved by jyn514

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 904dd2c with merge 5bf139e...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jyn514
Pushing 5bf139e to master...

[jyn514]

yay!!! thank you @WaffleLapkin for sticking with this ❤️ i know it was frustrating

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (5bf139e): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.6%	[-0.6%, -0.6%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.6%	[4.6%, 4.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.4%	[-4.3%, -2.5%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.