mdbook test

[steveklabnik]

This would be a subcommand that runs rustdoc --test on each of the source files and reports what happened.

[azerupi]

That would be a good addition, though I am more inclined to use mdbook test rust or something equivalent, to avoid being constrained if I eventually want to add other tests in the future.

For the implementation, does rustdoc have a Rust API or should I use std::process::Command?

[steveklabnik]

to avoid being constrained if I eventually want to add other tests in the future.

well, I would assume a top-level test would run all tests of all kinds... so that might not be a problem. Depends on what you want to do 😄

For the implementation, does rustdoc have a Rust API or should I use std::process::Command?

It does have a Rust API, but it's hard to use given that it's not on crates.io. I would at least start with Command, given that that's what rustbook does currently.

If we end up being able to put librustdoc up on crates.io in the future, doing it that way might be more robust, but at least you can know that everyone who has Rust installed with have rustdoc, at least.

[azerupi]

well, I would assume a top-level test would run all tests of all kinds... so that might not be a problem. Depends on what you want to do

You are right ;)

When using Command do you know of a way to check if rustdoc is present on the system before running the command?

[steveklabnik]

You'd use regular shell things, I guess.

Btw I mentioned this to @achrichto this evening and he confirmed Command is the way to go.

On Dec 11, 2015, 18:30 -0500, Mathieu Davidnotifications@github.com, wrote:

well, I would assume a top-level test would run all tests of all kinds... so that might not be a problem. Depends on what you want to do

You are right ;)

When usingCommanddo you know of a way to check ifrustdocis present on the system before running the command?

—
Reply to this email directly orview it on GitHub(https://github.com/azerupi/mdBook/issues/69#issuecomment-164077293).