2021-04-30 02:14:51 -05:00
|
|
|
1| |// compile-flags: --edition=2018
|
|
|
|
2| |#![feature(no_coverage)]
|
|
|
|
3| |
|
|
|
|
4| |macro_rules! bail {
|
|
|
|
5| | ($msg:literal $(,)?) => {
|
|
|
|
6| | if $msg.len() > 0 {
|
|
|
|
7| | println!("no msg");
|
|
|
|
8| | } else {
|
|
|
|
9| | println!($msg);
|
|
|
|
10| | }
|
|
|
|
11| | return Err(String::from($msg));
|
|
|
|
12| | };
|
|
|
|
13| |}
|
|
|
|
14| |
|
|
|
|
15| |macro_rules! on_error {
|
|
|
|
16| | ($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
|
|
|
17| | $value.or_else(|e| { // FIXME(85000): no coverage in closure macros
|
|
|
|
18| | let message = format!($error_message, e);
|
|
|
|
19| | if message.len() > 0 {
|
|
|
|
20| | println!("{}", message);
|
|
|
|
21| | Ok(String::from("ok"))
|
2021-04-30 02:14:51 -05:00
|
|
|
22| | } else {
|
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
|
|
|
23| | bail!("error");
|
2021-04-30 02:14:51 -05:00
|
|
|
24| | }
|
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
|
|
|
25| | })
|
2021-04-30 02:14:51 -05:00
|
|
|
26| | };
|
|
|
|
27| |}
|
|
|
|
28| |
|
|
|
|
29| 1|fn load_configuration_files() -> Result<String, String> {
|
|
|
|
30| 1| Ok(String::from("config"))
|
|
|
|
31| 1|}
|
|
|
|
32| |
|
|
|
|
33| 1|pub async fn test() -> Result<(), String> {
|
|
|
|
34| 1| println!("Starting service");
|
|
|
|
35| 1| let config = on_error!(load_configuration_files(), "Error loading configs: {}")?;
|
|
|
|
^0
|
|
|
|
36| |
|
|
|
|
37| 1| let startup_delay_duration = String::from("arg");
|
|
|
|
38| 1| let _ = (config, startup_delay_duration);
|
|
|
|
39| 1| Ok(())
|
|
|
|
40| 1|}
|
|
|
|
41| |
|
|
|
|
42| |#[no_coverage]
|
|
|
|
43| |fn main() {
|
|
|
|
44| | executor::block_on(test());
|
|
|
|
45| |}
|
|
|
|
46| |
|
|
|
|
47| |mod executor {
|
|
|
|
48| | use core::{
|
|
|
|
49| | future::Future,
|
|
|
|
50| | pin::Pin,
|
|
|
|
51| | task::{Context, Poll, RawWaker, RawWakerVTable, Waker},
|
|
|
|
52| | };
|
|
|
|
53| |
|
|
|
|
54| | #[no_coverage]
|
|
|
|
55| | pub fn block_on<F: Future>(mut future: F) -> F::Output {
|
|
|
|
56| | let mut future = unsafe { Pin::new_unchecked(&mut future) };
|
|
|
|
57| | use std::hint::unreachable_unchecked;
|
|
|
|
58| | static VTABLE: RawWakerVTable = RawWakerVTable::new(
|
|
|
|
59| |
|
|
|
|
60| | #[no_coverage]
|
|
|
|
61| | |_| unsafe { unreachable_unchecked() }, // clone
|
|
|
|
62| |
|
|
|
|
63| | #[no_coverage]
|
|
|
|
64| | |_| unsafe { unreachable_unchecked() }, // wake
|
|
|
|
65| |
|
|
|
|
66| | #[no_coverage]
|
|
|
|
67| | |_| unsafe { unreachable_unchecked() }, // wake_by_ref
|
|
|
|
68| |
|
|
|
|
69| | #[no_coverage]
|
|
|
|
70| | |_| (),
|
|
|
|
71| | );
|
|
|
|
72| | let waker = unsafe { Waker::from_raw(RawWaker::new(core::ptr::null(), &VTABLE)) };
|
|
|
|
73| | let mut context = Context::from_waker(&waker);
|
|
|
|
74| |
|
|
|
|
75| | loop {
|
|
|
|
76| | if let Poll::Ready(val) = future.as_mut().poll(&mut context) {
|
|
|
|
77| | break val;
|
|
|
|
78| | }
|
|
|
|
79| | }
|
|
|
|
80| | }
|
|
|
|
81| |}
|
|
|
|
|