Option to generate and persist a test executable for documentation tests #37048
Labels
C-feature-request
Category: A feature request, i.e: not implemented / a PR.
T-dev-tools
Relevant to the dev-tools subteam, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
T-rustdoc
Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Comments
Mark-Simulacrum
added
the
T-rustdoc
steveklabnik
added
the
T-dev-tools
|
@steveklabnik Has there been any progress on this issue? This is an area of interest for me as well. |
Mark-Simulacrum
added
the
C-feature-request
|
I'm like to take a stab at this, if that's okay! |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 18, 2019
…eavus rustdoc: Add option to persist doc test executables Fixes #37048. This is the initial version of the code so the doctest executables can be used for stuff like code coverage (specifically xd009642/tarpaulin#13) the folders it goes into were just a first idea, so any better ones are welcome. Right now it creates a directory structure like: ``` given_path/ |_____ <filename>_rs_<linenum>/ |_____ ... |_____ <filename>_rs_<linenum>/ |_____ rust_out ``` I couldn't figure out where it actually outputs the file w/ the name, I suspect its somewhere deeper in the compiler. It also adds the unstable `--persist-doctests` flag to `rustdoc` that enables this behavior.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I couldn't find an existing issue for this so I thought I would bring it up. Pardon me if this is a duplicate or in the wrong repository.
I wrote an in depth guide about Rust code coverage a few months ago based on the older guide that had been around for a while. One of the things I wrote about was that you can't currently get code coverage for documentation tests because
cargo testorcargo test --docdoesn't output any test executable for documentation tests. The tool being used to generate coverage data, kcov, requires an executable that directly runs the code you want to measure.It would be really helpful if there was a way not to just temporarily generate an executable for documentation tests, but also to have the option to store that executable somewhere (much like how the unit test executable is generated and stored in
target/debug). That way we can manually run it using whatever tools we please.I'm really surprised that I couldn't find an existing issue for this. There is a StackOverflow question about the issue but it doesn't lead anywhere. Hopefully this is a duplicate and it's been on your radar for some time.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: