TMI: Today in rustpkg
Apr. 16th, 2013 05:24 pmI'd given feedback on a rustc pull request saying "try to get rid of that copy" in a pull request, but when asked how, I looked at the code and realized it wasn't easy to rewrite without a copy. So that was an hour gone!
Then, back to rustpkg; I started testing it on the test cases I wrote yesterday (just manually, for now, though writing a test runner needs to happen soon) and noticed that I wasn't naming the output executables or libraries correctly. So I added code to synthesize the link crate attributes with the inferred name and version, so you don't have to write it explicitly in the package file. Now, 2 out of 3 of my test cases work.
And finally, to round the day off, removing a few more bad copies.
Next:
Then, back to rustpkg; I started testing it on the test cases I wrote yesterday (just manually, for now, though writing a test runner needs to happen soon) and noticed that I wasn't naming the output executables or libraries correctly. So I added code to synthesize the link crate attributes with the inferred name and version, so you don't have to write it explicitly in the package file. Now, 2 out of 3 of my test cases work.
And finally, to round the day off, removing a few more bad copies.
Next:
- Error out in the case where no lib.rs, main.rs, bench.rs, or test.rs fine is found
- Split tests into pass and fail subdirectories (for tests expected to build correctly, and tests expected to fail)
- Add a test case to test that a package without a lib, main, bench, or test file fails.
- Submit a new pull request.