2023-09-05 17:42:57 -05:00
|
|
|
#![feature(coverage_attribute)]
|
2023-12-14 23:38:27 -06:00
|
|
|
#![feature(noop_waker)]
|
|
|
|
// edition: 2018
|
2021-04-30 02:14:51 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
$value.or_else(|e| { // FIXME(85000): no coverage in closure macros
|
2021-04-30 02:14:51 -05:00
|
|
|
let message = format!($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(())
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2023-09-05 17:42:57 -05:00
|
|
|
#[coverage(off)]
|
2021-04-30 02:14:51 -05:00
|
|
|
fn main() {
|
2023-08-16 20:24:56 -05:00
|
|
|
executor::block_on(test()).unwrap();
|
2021-04-30 02:14:51 -05:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mod executor {
|
2023-12-14 23:38:27 -06:00
|
|
|
use core::future::Future;
|
|
|
|
use core::pin::pin;
|
|
|
|
use core::task::{Context, Poll, Waker};
|
2021-04-30 02:14:51 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2023-09-05 17:42:57 -05:00
|
|
|
#[coverage(off)]
|
2021-04-30 02:14:51 -05:00
|
|
|
pub fn block_on<F: Future>(mut future: F) -> F::Output {
|
2023-12-14 23:38:27 -06:00
|
|
|
let mut future = pin!(future);
|
|
|
|
let waker = Waker::noop();
|
2021-04-30 02:14:51 -05:00
|
|
|
let mut context = Context::from_waker(&waker);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loop {
|
|
|
|
if let Poll::Ready(val) = future.as_mut().poll(&mut context) {
|
|
|
|
break val;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|