Re: [PATCH 0/6] KUnit integration for Rust doctests

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 3:44 AM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Great work! I've played this for a while, and it's really useful ;-)

Thanks!

> The assertion warning only says line 35 but which file? Yes, the
> ".._sync_lock_spinlock_rs" name does provide the lead, however since we
> generate the test code, so we actually know the line # for each real
> test body, so I come up a way to give us the following:
>
>         [..] # rust_doctest_kernel_sync_lock_spinlock_rs_0: ASSERTION FAILED at rust/kernel/sync/lock/spinlock.rs:61
>         [..] Expected e.c == 11 to be true, but is false
>         [..] [FAILED] rust_doctest_kernel_sync_lock_spinlock_rs_0
>
> Thoughts?

Sounds good to me. However, David/Philip, is this OK or do you really
need/use the actual/compiled source file there? If you don't need it,
does it need to exist / be a real file at least? If the latter answer
is a "yes", which I guess it may be likely, then:

> +        let src_file = format!("rust/kernel/{}", file.replace("_rs", ".rs").replace("_", "/"));

This would not work for files with a `_` in their name, like
`locked_by.rs`. I guess we could still find the real filename based on
that information walking the dir, which is another hack I recall
considering at some point.

Otherwise, if "fake" filenames in the line above are OK for
David/Philip (I suspect they may want to open them for reporting?),
then I guess the `file` one may be good enough and eventually we
should get `rustdoc` to give us the proper metadata anyway.

Cheers,
Miguel