rust/tests/coverage/closure_macro_async.rs

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

78 lines
2.1 KiB
Rust
Raw Normal View History

// compile-flags: --edition=2018
#![feature(coverage_attribute)]
macro_rules! bail {
($msg:literal $(,)?) => {
if $msg.len() > 0 {
println!("no msg");
} else {
println!($msg);
}
return Err(String::from($msg));
};
}
macro_rules! on_error {
($value:expr, $error_message:expr) => {
Coverage instruments closure bodies in macros (not the macro body) Fixes: #84884 This solution might be considered a compromise, but I think it is the better choice. The results in the `closure.rs` test correctly resolve all test cases broken as described in #84884. One test pattern (in both `closure_macro.rs` and `closure_macro_async.rs`) was also affected, and removes coverage statistics for the lines inside the closure, because the closure includes a macro. (The coverage remains at the callsite of the macro, so we lose some detail, but there isn't a perfect choice with macros. Often macro implementations are split across the macro and the callsite, and there doesn't appear to be a single "right choice" for which body should be covered. For the current implementation, we can't do both. The callsite is most likely to be the preferred site for coverage. I applied this fix to all `MacroKinds`, not just `Bang`. I'm trying to resolve an issue of lost coverage in a `MacroKind::Attr`-based, function-scoped macro. Instead of only searching for a body_span that is "not a function-like macro" (that is, MacroKind::Bang), I'm expanding this to all `MacroKind`s. Maybe I should expand this to `ExpnKind::Desugaring` and `ExpnKind::AstPass` (or subsets, depending on their sub-kinds) as well, but I'm not sure that's a good idea. I'd like to add a test of the `Attr` macro on functions, but I need time to figure out how to constract a good, simple example without external crate dependencies. For the moment, all tests still work as expected (no change), this new commit shouldn't have a negative affect, and more importantly, I believe it will have a positive effect. I will try to confirm this.
2021-05-04 01:21:24 -05:00
$value.or_else(|e| { // FIXME(85000): no coverage in closure macros
let message = format!($error_message, e);
if message.len() > 0 {
println!("{}", message);
Ok(String::from("ok"))
} else {
bail!("error");
}
})
};
}
fn load_configuration_files() -> Result<String, String> {
Ok(String::from("config"))
}
pub async fn test() -> Result<(), String> {
println!("Starting service");
let config = on_error!(load_configuration_files(), "Error loading configs: {}")?;
let startup_delay_duration = String::from("arg");
let _ = (config, startup_delay_duration);
Ok(())
}
#[coverage(off)]
fn main() {
executor::block_on(test()).unwrap();
}
mod executor {
use core::{
future::Future,
pin::Pin,
task::{Context, Poll, RawWaker, RawWakerVTable, Waker},
};
#[coverage(off)]
pub fn block_on<F: Future>(mut future: F) -> F::Output {
let mut future = unsafe { Pin::new_unchecked(&mut future) };
use std::hint::unreachable_unchecked;
static VTABLE: RawWakerVTable = RawWakerVTable::new(
#[coverage(off)]
|_| unsafe { unreachable_unchecked() }, // clone
#[coverage(off)]
|_| unsafe { unreachable_unchecked() }, // wake
#[coverage(off)]
|_| unsafe { unreachable_unchecked() }, // wake_by_ref
#[coverage(off)]
|_| (),
);
let waker = unsafe { Waker::from_raw(RawWaker::new(core::ptr::null(), &VTABLE)) };
let mut context = Context::from_waker(&waker);
loop {
if let Poll::Ready(val) = future.as_mut().poll(&mut context) {
break val;
}
}
}
}