Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230614180837.630180-1-ojeda@kernel.org> <20230614180837.630180-6-ojeda@kernel.org>
 <49dad8fe-c509-6c43-559e-13a82563d3d0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49dad8fe-c509-6c43-559e-13a82563d3d0@gmail.com>
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 11:23:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CANiq72mq4wYJ77qDKYWTO=FkA1AYat2rJd63Gps9aUrP82c9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] rust: support running Rust documentation tests as
 KUnit ones
To:     Martin Rodriguez Reboredo <yakoyoku@gmail.com>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>, David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@gmail.com>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Roy_Baron?= <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
        Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me>,
        Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>,
        Andreas Hindborg <nmi@metaspace.dk>,
        Philip Li <philip.li@intel.com>, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 5:52=E2=80=AFAM Martin Rodriguez Reboredo
<yakoyoku@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can't remember that if this panic it will mention the path on it.
> Though if it does, then use something more explicit than
> `.unwrap()`.

It doesn't print it, and I am happy to make things more explicit, but
in which case(s) do you see it failing?

> Please do not use unwrap here, one can easily create a path that
> it's not compliant under `rust/test/doctests/kernel` and get no
> clue about where this script has failed. Use `.expect()` or
> something else instead.

The folder is removed every time, so that should not happen I think.
Yes, you can still hack things and call the script manually, but I
wouldn't call that "easily".

Nevertheless, I am happy to change it if we think there is a risk,
e.g. `rustdoc` changing the pattern (though we pin the version so
far).

Thanks for taking a look Martin!

Cheers,
Miguel