who: cover utmp record types from a fixture

[itay-raveh]

• Closes who/unix.rs: improve code coverage #9060.

Add a Linux/glibc utmp fixture builder and run who against run-level, boot-time, clock-change, init, login, user, dead-process. uptime now uses the same builder.

The test covers default output, --all --heading, --count, and --lookup.

[sylvestre]

why do we need a new file ? it can't be in who ?

[itay-raveh]

I wanted to use LinuxGlibcUtmpRecord and write_linux_glibc_utmp in both places, so I created a shared file. Do you prefer uptime import from who?

[sylvestre]

ok, makes sense, thanks

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/cut/bounded-memory (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skip an intermittent issue tests/date/date-locale-hour (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skip an intermittent issue tests/misc/tty-eof (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/tail/retry (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Note: The gnu test tests/printf/printf-surprise is now being skipped but was previously passing.
Note: The gnu test tests/rm/many-dir-entries-vs-OOM is now being skipped but was previously passing.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will improve performance by 9.99%

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

⚡ 6 improved benchmarks
✅ 351 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 50 skipped benchmarks¹

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	Simulation	true_consecutive_calls	350.2 ns	294.7 ns	+18.85%
⚡	Simulation	split_lines	10.6 ms	9.2 ms	+15.15%
⚡	Simulation	split_numeric_suffix	11.1 ms	9.7 ms	+14.36%
⚡	Simulation	split_bytes	675.4 µs	644.4 µs	+4.82%
⚡	Simulation	uniq_case_insensitive[10000]	3 ms	2.8 ms	+4.35%
⚡	Simulation	uniq_with_count[10000]	3.8 ms	3.7 ms	+3.43%

Tip

Curious why performance improved? Comment @codspeedbot explain why performance improved on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing itay-raveh:tests-who-utmp-records (5fe83de) with main (a817fa0)²}

Footnotes

1. 50 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. No successful run was found on main (728388e) during the generation of this report, so a817fa0 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩