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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

rustdoc: Don't run Markdown tests twice #43068

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 7, 2017
Merged

rustdoc: Don't run Markdown tests twice #43068

merged 1 commit into from Jul 7, 2017

Conversation

ollie27
Copy link
Member

@ollie27 ollie27 commented Jul 5, 2017

This matches the behaviour for finding tests in Rust files.

This was a regression from 1.17 to 1.18 so it would be a good idea to backport this to beta so at least 1.19 won't also be affected.

Fixes #42726

r? @GuillaumeGomez

@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum added beta-nominated Nominated for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. T-dev-tools Relevant to the dev-tools subteam, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 5, 2017
@aidanhs aidanhs added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 5, 2017
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Good catch, thanks!

@bors: r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 6, 2017

📌 Commit dec01f8 has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 6, 2017

🔒 Merge conflict

@ollie27
rustdoc: Don't run Markdown tests twice
1966a67 
This matches the behaviour for finding tests in Rust files.
@ollie27
Copy link
Member Author

ollie27 commented Jul 6, 2017

rebased

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

@bors: r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 6, 2017

📌 Commit 1966a67 has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 7, 2017

⌛ Testing commit 1966a67 with merge 24fc541...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 7, 2017
@bors
Auto merge of #43068 - ollie27:rustdoc_markdown_tests, r=GuillaumeGomez
24fc541 
rustdoc: Don't run Markdown tests twice

This matches the behaviour for finding tests in Rust files.

This was a regression from 1.17 to 1.18 so it would be a good idea to backport this to beta so at least 1.19 won't also be affected.

Fixes #42726

r? @GuillaumeGomez
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 7, 2017

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing 24fc541 to master...

@bors bors merged commit 1966a67 into rust-lang:master Jul 7, 2017
@ollie27 ollie27 deleted the rustdoc_markdown_tests branch July 7, 2017 15:04
@brson brson added the beta-accepted Accepted for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. label Jul 8, 2017
@brson brson mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2017
Merged
@brson brson removed the beta-nominated Nominated for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. label Jul 13, 2017
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 13, 2017
@bors
Auto merge of #43114 - brson:beta-next, r=brson
8537f4e 
[beta] backports

- #43068
- #43043
- #42745

The pick of 143206d in cfa3b58 was not clean and needed a fair bit of surgery. It should probably be looked at closely.

Still testing locally.
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 13, 2017
@bors
Auto merge of #43114 - brson:beta-next, r=alexcrichton
23542f5 
[beta] backports

- #43068
- #43043
- #42745

The pick of 143206d in cfa3b58 was not clean and needed a fair bit of surgery. It should probably be looked at closely.

Still testing locally.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez

Labels
beta-accepted Accepted for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-dev-tools Relevant to the dev-tools subteam, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
6 participants
@ollie27 @GuillaumeGomez @bors @brson @aidanhs @Mark-Simulacrum