Add a tidy check to find unexpected files in UI tests, and clean up the results#111363
Conversation
e5a4c18 to
484cb36
Compare
fee1-dead
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
r=me with nits above addressed
8a00f43 to
5c34e66
Compare
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #111402) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
6f7626e to
5c34e66
Compare
5c34e66 to
517ea56
Compare
|
@bors r=fee1-dead |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (eb03a3e): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 659.849s -> 660.195s (0.05%) |
While looking at UI tests, I noticed several weird files that were not being tested, some from even pre-1.0. I added a tidy check that fails if any files not known to compiletest or not used in tests (via manual list) are present in the ui tests.
Unfortunately the root entry limit had to be raised by 1 to accommodate the stderr file for one of the tests.
r? @fee1-dead