Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Mark missing_fragment_specifier as FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps #128122

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 25, 2024
Merged

Mark missing_fragment_specifier as FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps #128122

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 25, 2024

Conversation

tgross35
Copy link
Contributor

@tgross35 tgross35 commented Jul 23, 2024 •
edited
Loading

We are moving toward forbidding missing_fragment_specifier either in edition 2024 or unconditionally. Make a first step toward this by ensuring crates that rely on the old behavior are reported when used as dependencies.

Tracking issue: #128143

r? @petrochenkov

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 23, 2024
@tgross35
Copy link
Contributor Author

tgross35 commented Jul 23, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Not sure if there is more that I need to change within the compiler. Waiting on my local to complete tests.

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

I would hope that nothing in the compiler's transitive dependencies relies on this behavior. No harm in kicking off bors in the mean time -- tests don't need to pass, for the record.

@bors try

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#128122 - tgross35:missing-fragment-specifier-…
6e0ec28 
…unconditional, r=<try>

[do not merge] crater: missing fragment specifier FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps

Test making missing fragment specifiers a deny by default error.

See rust-lang#128006

r? `@petrochenkov`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 24, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 142f581 with merge 6e0ec28...

@tgross35
Copy link
Contributor Author

tgross35 commented Jul 24, 2024 •
edited
Loading

I think I might have misunderstood #128006 (comment). Is petrochenkov suggesting that we can use the output of changing to FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps (this PR) to run crater and see what the fallout is, rather than cratering a non-edition-dependent version of #128006? Or that FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps is a change we could do and actually merge nowish, then separately crater an unconditional error.

@tgross35
Copy link
Contributor Author

Or more accurate question, will crates with #![allow(missing_fragment_specifier)] still show up in crater with only FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps?

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

Or that FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps is a change we could do and actually merge nowish, then separately crater an unconditional error.

This.
No reason to crater FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps.

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

r=me after updating commit/PR titles/descriptions.
@rustbot author

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 24, 2024
@tgross35 tgross35 force-pushed the missing-fragment-specifier-unconditional branch from 798d579 to b5425f5 Compare July 24, 2024 17:13
@tgross35 tgross35 changed the title [do not merge] crater: missing fragment specifier FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps Mark missing_fragment_specifier as FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps Jul 24, 2024
@tgross35
Mark missing_fragment_specifier as FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps
c9886a1 
We are moving toward forbidding `missing_fragment_specifier` either in
edition 2024 or unconditionally. Make a first step toward this by
ensuring crates that rely on the old behavior are reported when used as
dependencies.

Tracking issue: <rust-lang#128143>
@tgross35 tgross35 force-pushed the missing-fragment-specifier-unconditional branch from b5425f5 to c9886a1 Compare July 24, 2024 17:17
@tgross35 tgross35 marked this pull request as ready for review July 24, 2024 17:19
@tgross35
Copy link
Contributor Author

Squashed and reworded the commit, as well as adjusted the PR info. Thanks for the review.

@bors r=petrochenkov

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 24, 2024

📌 Commit c9886a1 has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jul 24, 2024
@tgross35 tgross35 mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2024
Closed
3 tasks
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
@matthiaskrgr
Rollup merge of rust-lang#128122 - tgross35:missing-fragment-specifie…
568b6a0 
…r-unconditional, r=petrochenkov

Mark `missing_fragment_specifier` as `FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps`

We are moving toward forbidding `missing_fragment_specifier` either in edition 2024 or unconditionally. Make a first step toward this by ensuring crates that rely on the old behavior are reported when used as dependencies.

Tracking issue: <rust-lang#128143>
@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2024
Closed
@tgross35 tgross35 mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2024
Merged
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#128148 - matthiaskrgr:rollup-82zv908, r=matth…
d3f816b 
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 7 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#126548 (Improved clarity of documentation for std::fs::create_dir_all)
 - rust-lang#127528 (Replace ASCII control chars with Unicode Control Pictures)
 - rust-lang#127717 (Fix malformed suggestion for repeated maybe unsized bounds)
 - rust-lang#128046 (Fix some `#[cfg_attr(not(doc), repr(..))]`)
 - rust-lang#128122 (Mark `missing_fragment_specifier` as `FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps`)
 - rust-lang#128135 (std: use duplicate thread local state in tests)
 - rust-lang#128140 (Remove Unnecessary `.as_str()` Conversions)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2024
Merged
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#128155 - matthiaskrgr:rollup-lxtal9f, r=matth…
e7d66ea 
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 8 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#122192 (Do not try to reveal hidden types when trying to prove auto-traits in the defining scope)
 - rust-lang#126042 (Implement `unsigned_signed_diff`)
 - rust-lang#126548 (Improved clarity of documentation for std::fs::create_dir_all)
 - rust-lang#127717 (Fix malformed suggestion for repeated maybe unsized bounds)
 - rust-lang#128046 (Fix some `#[cfg_attr(not(doc), repr(..))]`)
 - rust-lang#128122 (Mark `missing_fragment_specifier` as `FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps`)
 - rust-lang#128135 (std: use duplicate thread local state in tests)
 - rust-lang#128140 (Remove Unnecessary `.as_str()` Conversions)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit dec0c48 into rust-lang:master Jul 25, 2024
6 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.82.0 milestone Jul 25, 2024
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 25, 2024
@rust-timer
Unrolled build for rust-lang#128122
5498fd1 
Rollup merge of rust-lang#128122 - tgross35:missing-fragment-specifier-unconditional, r=petrochenkov

Mark `missing_fragment_specifier` as `FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps`

We are moving toward forbidding `missing_fragment_specifier` either in edition 2024 or unconditionally. Make a first step toward this by ensuring crates that rely on the old behavior are reported when used as dependencies.

Tracking issue: <rust-lang#128143>
@tgross35 tgross35 deleted the missing-fragment-specifier-unconditional branch July 25, 2024 01:42
@tgross35 tgross35 mentioned this pull request Aug 14, 2024
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@petrochenkov petrochenkov

Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.82.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@tgross35 @compiler-errors @bors @petrochenkov @rustbot