Use std::process::Command throughout compile-test #43798
Conversation
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn compose_and_run(&self, | ||
| ProcArgs{ args, prog }: ProcArgs, | ||
| procenv: Vec<(String, String)> , | ||
| mut command: Command, | ||
| lib_path: &str, | ||
| aux_path: Option<&str>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if maybe we could remove these arguments as well? It looks like not all tests need to pass this so we could have a helper which works with these variables and otherwise these aren't passed and the helper isn't called when not needed.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn compose_and_run(&self, | ||
| ProcArgs{ args, prog }: ProcArgs, | ||
| procenv: Vec<(String, String)> , | ||
| mut command: Command, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One thing that may be worth testing is to take &mut Command here instead of Command. I'm not 100% sure which is more ergonomic, though!
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| // FIXME (#9639): This needs to handle non-utf8 paths |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great to see all these FIXME annotations removed!
|
This looks great to me, thanks! We can always delegate future refactorings to later PRs, this seems great enough to land in the meantime. |
|
Great. Happy to address the comments in the future. |
shepmaster
added
the
S-waiting-on-author
|
Oh so to be clear, @euclio mind trying to remove the |
|
Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll see if I can find the time this weekend. |
|
Which invocations actually need the library path munging? Just |
|
Oh I figured we'd just preserve the existing behavior which is that wherever |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #43710) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
@alexcrichton Ok, do the commands ever need just |
|
In other words I'm wondering if there are any invocations that have a None aux path and still need their path munged to include an empty path. |
|
@euclio did you mean to close this? I don't think anything needs If this takes awhile to do though I don't want to block this! I'm fine landing this ahead of time if you'd like to take some more time to game out that change. |
|
Ah, whoops! Reopened. So, I think there's still a little question on how to handle the |
|
Ugh, looks like my rebase borked the branch. Will reopen shortly. |
|
Ok sounds good to me! Feel free to cc me on the new PR and I'll r+ |
Use std::process::Command throughout compile-test Resubmission of #43798. Fixes #43762. r? @alexcrichton
Fixes #43762.
r? @alexcrichton
Fixed up what didn't require a major refactor. I'd like to remove
ProcArgs, but there's no way to get the current program name and args from aCommandbuilder.compose_and_run? I wonder if we could simplify that.expects in the output. Maybe it's worth threading the errors up through.