Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add basic integration tests for travis #2764

Merged
merged 6 commits into from May 17, 2018
Merged

Conversation

@phansch
Copy link
Member

@phansch phansch commented May 16, 2018

This adds an integration test setup very similar to the one used by rustfmt.

The goal of this PR is to get it working for just cargo and rand and once this is merged, we can add the rest easily. I also want to make it work for AppVeyor in this PR.

I expect this to fail currently, mainly due to cargo, let's see!

cc #2736

phansch added 2 commits May 16, 2018
@oli-obk
Copy link
Collaborator

@oli-obk oli-obk commented May 16, 2018

looks like the script doesn't have the execute bit set

phansch added 4 commits May 16, 2018
Because that makes the script stop early and not print any clippy error
output.
@phansch
Copy link
Member Author

@phansch phansch commented May 16, 2018

Ok, the build script now works as expected and cargo as well as rand are failing. I will add the same for the AppVeyor build next.

@oli-obk
Copy link
Collaborator

@oli-obk oli-obk commented May 17, 2018

Feel free to merge this and continue development on a new PR. No need to do everything at once

@phansch phansch changed the title [wip] Add integration tests Add basic integration tests for travis May 17, 2018
@phansch phansch merged commit f19eab9 into rust-lang:master May 17, 2018
2 checks passed
2 checks passed
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@phansch phansch deleted the phansch:integration_tests branch May 17, 2018
@matthiaskrgr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr commented on dd0ed5d Jul 28, 2018

This leaves the 2 branches of the check() function identical which is confusing me a bit, is this something that can be cleaned up?

@phansch
Copy link
Member Author

@phansch phansch commented Jul 29, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants