compile-fail test new Formatter move semantics #308
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
now that the signature of `Format::format` has changed we expect that these uses of the `write!` macro and `format` method fail so let's test that the `fmt-*` examples were corrupting the defmt data stream before but now are rejected at compile time the error message for the `write!` examples could be better: it should not mention the `InternalFormatter` type, which is an implementation detail. I'll open an issue about improving the diagnostics of that macro
|
bors r+ |
|
Build succeeded: |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
now that the signature of
Format::formathas changed we expect that these uses of thewrite!macro and
formatmethod fail so let's test thatthe
fmt-*examples were corrupting the defmt data stream before but now are rejected at compiletime
the error message for the
write!examples could be better: it should not mention theInternalFormattertype, which is an implementation detail. I'll open an issue about improving thediagnostics of that macro