On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 5:52 AM Martin Rodriguez Reboredo <yakoyoku@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I can't remember that if this panic it will mention the path on it. > Though if it does, then use something more explicit than > `.unwrap()`. It doesn't print it, and I am happy to make things more explicit, but in which case(s) do you see it failing? > Please do not use unwrap here, one can easily create a path that > it's not compliant under `rust/test/doctests/kernel` and get no > clue about where this script has failed. Use `.expect()` or > something else instead. The folder is removed every time, so that should not happen I think. Yes, you can still hack things and call the script manually, but I wouldn't call that "easily". Nevertheless, I am happy to change it if we think there is a risk, e.g. `rustdoc` changing the pattern (though we pin the version so far). Thanks for taking a look Martin! Cheers, Miguel
