Fix test panics for submodule of book is not updated

[chenyukang]

Fixes #113963

[rustbot]

r? @clubby789

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[onur-ozkan]

This will not give the error(which it should give) if submodule was fetched but directory was corrupted/removed. Checking if submodule was fetched or not could be better option here.

[chenyukang]

updated the code to check the directory and exit(1) if checking failed.

[onur-ozkan]

Thanks for the fix! Looks good to me.

Only 1 suggestion you may want to consider following it. r=me with/without it since it's not a blocker.

[onur-ozkan]

We can create function something like fn is_submodule_checked_out(module_path: &str) -> bool that uses git submodule foreach command inside.

[chenyukang]

@bors r=ozkanonur

[bors]

📌 Commit d46804c has been approved by ozkanonur

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit d46804c with merge d9d80e2...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: ozkanonur
Pushing d9d80e2 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d9d80e2): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.8%]	4
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.3%, 0.6%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.8%]	4

Max RSS (memory usage)

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)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.2%	[-2.2%, -2.2%]	1

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)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 652.001s -> 651.923s (-0.01%)

[rylev]

Perf: this is noise that is corrected in the next run.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged