Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 31 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Add ‘#[serial]’ tests (v2) #42684
(Fixed version of #42626; sorry for the noise.)
This PR adds a
I’ve confirmed that the libtest and tidy tests pass. I wasn’t able to run the full suite as a lot of the run_make tests seem to fail on my Windows system, but everything passed up to that point.
Rust (and PR!) newbie here, so please do let me know if I’m doing something poorly or incorrectly!
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @brson (or someone else) soon.
If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.
Please see the contribution instructions for more information.
(active, serial_tests, "1.19.0", Some(42684))
("serial", Normal, Gated(Stability::Unstable, "serial_tests", "the `#[serial]` attribute is an experimental feature", cfg_fn!(serial_tests))
Is this correct? Have I missed anything? I’ll try to get it done pronto, but if not, it will be about a week.
Re: the name of the attribute itself, I can change that if
@brson do you have links to previous discussion or could you summarise here please? My opinion (uninformed by previous discussion) is that this is something I've wanted personally and I don't see why we should not support it (as long as it is feature gated etc.) being its own attribute feels kind of wrong (I'd prefer to attach it to
referenced this pull request
Jul 10, 2017
Discussed at the dev-tools meeting today, this problem can be solved today using a mutex (I filed #43155 to document that). Given that this solution feels somewhat ad hoc and there is workaround, we would prefer to punt on adding this in favour of custom test runners or some other long-term solution.
Thanks for the PR @shivjm and sorry to close it out after your work.