Document tests in the run-make directory (A to C)

[Oneirical]

Part of the #121876 project.

This PR adds comments to some run-make tests which lack one, explaining what is being tested. If possible, a link to the relevant PR or Issue responsible for the test is also provided.

This will help the porting efforts to rmake.rs, and will also allow maintainers to focus efforts on tests which are more pertinent to port. For example, this test will become useless after all tests containing CGREP are successfully ported.

In order to simplify review and at the suggestion of Kobzol on the rust-lang #gsoc Zulip, only the first 23 comments are part of this PR. If it is merged, future PRs will ensue commenting the rest of the tests.

Could be an UI test:

• dep-info-doesnt-run-much

[rustbot]

r? @jieyouxu

rustbot has assigned @jieyouxu.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in run-make tests.

cc @jieyouxu

[jieyouxu]

Thanks for adding some docs. I think test docs should have (this is mostly a remark):

• The why: why does this test exist? relevant issues, PRs and discussions?
• The what: what is this test trying to test?
• The how: how does this test test what it wants to test? this should only be elaborated upon if the how is not trivial or not immediately obvious.

If possible, tests (including its docs) should be somewhat self-contained: it's okay to link to relevant issues and PRs for further context, but it should be possible to understand (at a basic level) why a test exists and what it's trying to test without having to go to the relevant links.

I left some remarks for the test comments.

[jieyouxu]

Also it might make more sense to update docs alongside ports, because there might be subtleties that is not easy to realize when just reading the Makefiles.

[Oneirical]

All review feedback has been implemented.

Also it might make more sense to update docs alongside ports, because there might be subtleties that is not easy to realize when just reading the Makefiles.

If possible, tests (including its docs) should be somewhat self-contained: it's okay to link to relevant issues and PRs for further context, but it should be possible to understand (at a basic level) why a test exists and what it's trying to test without having to go to the relevant links.

That is what I was realizing as well... but I was wondering if these comments are better than what there currently is, which is "nothing". The URLs might be a "nice-to-have" instead of digging through the commit history, which spans over a decade and implies file renames and moves.

If you think it is better to wait, this PR can be closed. I'll keep these notes in my personal fork, though, as I've found them useful as reference for the porting tasks.

[jieyouxu]

One nit then r=me

[jieyouxu]

@bors delegate+

[bors]

✌️ @Oneirical, you can now approve this pull request!

If @jieyouxu told you to "r=me" after making some further change, please make that change, then do @bors r=@jieyouxu

[jieyouxu]

r=me after CI is green

[Oneirical]

@bors r=@jieyouxu

[bors]

📌 Commit bdab8b1 has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit bdab8b1 with merge 8f9080d...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jieyouxu
Pushing 8f9080d to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (8f9080d): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

Results

This 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.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.0%	[-1.0%, -1.0%]	1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 673.66s -> 673.028s (-0.09%)
Artifact size: 315.97 MiB -> 315.78 MiB (-0.06%)