Mark some edition tests as check-pass #86537
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Mark-Simulacrum (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
| @@ -3,7 +3,8 @@ | |||
| // to detect or fix uses of `dyn` under a macro. Since we are testing | |||
| // this file via `rustfix`, we want the rustfix output to be | |||
| // compilable; so the macros here carefully use `dyn` "correctly." | |||
|
|
|||
| // | |||
| // edition:2015 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't need it as the default edition is 2015.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm sorry, I really meant to explain that better and then forgot. We don't need it, but when the test is looking at edition specific behavior, it's clearer to have a marker in the test that shows what edition it runs on. That's presumably why that marking is already on some of the other 2015 edition-specific tests. Plus, we might change the default edition for these tests in the future. If new code is going to be written on a newer edition, it would make sense for most tests to look at the behavior of the current edition rather than the old one, so changing the default could be a good idea at some point. Given all that, I thought it made sense to add it to the tests I was changing anyway, and then I put it on the others in the same group for consistency.
|
@bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 8ad63ba has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
…ts-check-pass, r=JohnTitor Mark some edition tests as check-pass ## Overview This helps with rust-lang#62277. In short, there are some tests that were marked as `build-pass` when it was unclear whether `check-pass` might be more appropriate. This PR marks some of those tests as `compile-pass`, in addition to making some incidental formatting improvements. ## A brief explanation of why this is correct These tests fall into a few buckets. `src/test/ui/dyn-keyword/dyn-2015-edition-keyword-ident-lint.rs` `src/test/ui/dyn-keyword/dyn-2015-idents-in-decl-macros-unlinted.rs` `src/test/ui/dyn-keyword/dyn-2015-idents-in-macros-unlinted.rs` `src/test/ui/dyn-keyword/dyn-2015-no-warnings-without-lints.rs` `src/test/ui/dyn-keyword/issue-56327-dyn-trait-in-macro-is-okay.rs` These test a lint for a keyword added in a new edition and the corresponding changes in keyword rules. `src/test/ui/editions/edition-feature-ok.rs` This checks that a feature related to an edition transition is valid. `src/test/ui/editions/edition-imports-virtual-2015-ambiguity.rs` This checks that imports between editions work correctly. `src/test/ui/editions/edition-keywords-2015-2015-expansion.rs` `src/test/ui/editions/edition-keywords-2018-2015-expansion.rs` This checks the interaction between a change in keyword status over editions and macros. All of the things being tested come before linking and codegen, so it is safe to use `check-pass` for them.
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#86393 (Add regression test for issue rust-lang#52025) - rust-lang#86402 (rustdoc: add optional woff2 versions of Source Serif and Source Code) - rust-lang#86451 (Resolve intra-doc links in summary desc) - rust-lang#86501 (Cleanup handling of `crate_name` for doctests) - rust-lang#86517 (Fix `unused_unsafe` around `await`) - rust-lang#86537 (Mark some edition tests as check-pass) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Overview
This helps with #62277. In short, there are some tests that were marked as
build-passwhen it was unclear whethercheck-passmight be more appropriate. This PR marks some of those tests ascheck-pass, in addition to making some incidental formatting improvements.A brief explanation of why this is correct
These tests fall into a few buckets.
src/test/ui/dyn-keyword/dyn-2015-edition-keyword-ident-lint.rssrc/test/ui/dyn-keyword/dyn-2015-idents-in-decl-macros-unlinted.rssrc/test/ui/dyn-keyword/dyn-2015-idents-in-macros-unlinted.rssrc/test/ui/dyn-keyword/dyn-2015-no-warnings-without-lints.rssrc/test/ui/dyn-keyword/issue-56327-dyn-trait-in-macro-is-okay.rsThese test a lint for a keyword added in a new edition and the corresponding changes in keyword rules.
src/test/ui/editions/edition-feature-ok.rsThis checks that a feature related to an edition transition is valid.
src/test/ui/editions/edition-imports-virtual-2015-ambiguity.rsThis checks that imports between editions work correctly.
src/test/ui/editions/edition-keywords-2015-2015-expansion.rssrc/test/ui/editions/edition-keywords-2018-2015-expansion.rsThis checks the interaction between a change in keyword status over editions and macros.
All of the things being tested come before linking and codegen, so it is safe to use
check-passfor them.