Use revisions to track NLL test output (part 1) #95591
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
rustbot
added
the
T-compiler
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
oli-obk
reviewed
Apr 3, 2022
src/test/ui/nll/user-annotations/constant-in-expr-inherent-2.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
jackh726
force-pushed
the
nll-revisions-1
branch
2 times, most recently
from
13eab50 to
3e78fc3
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
oli-obk
reviewed
Apr 5, 2022
| @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ | |||
| // revisions: base nll | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This file's stderr output files got deleted
|
r=me with issues opened for the minor diagnostics regressions |
jackh726
force-pushed
the
nll-revisions-1
branch
from
3e78fc3 to
f881bf7
Compare
|
📌 Commit f881bf7 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 5, 2022
Use revisions to track NLL test output (part 1) The idea here is 2 fold: 1) When we eventually do make NLL default on, that PR should be systematic in "delete revisions and corresponding error annotations" 2) This allows us to look at test NLL outputs in chunks. (Though, I've opted here not to "mark" these tests. There are some tests with NLL revisions *now* that will be missed. I expect we do a second pass once we have all the tests with NLL revisions; these tests should be easy enough to eyeball.) The actual review here should be "easy", but a bit tedious. I expect we should manually go through each test output and confirm it's okay. The majority of these are either: 1) Only span change (the one I see most common is highlighting an entire function call, rather than just the function name in that call) 2) "E0308 mismatched types" -> "lifetime does not live long enough" 3) "E0495 cannot infer an appropriate lifetime for lifetime parameter" -> "lifetime does not live long enough" 4) "E0312 lifetime of reference outlives lifetime of borrowed content" -> "lifetime does not live long enough" 5) "E0759 `XXX` has an anonymous lifetime `'_` but it needs to satisfy a `'static` lifetime requirement" -> "lifetime does not live long enough" 6) "E0623 lifetime mismatch" -> "lifetime does not live long enough" Other than the now lack of an error code, most of these look fine (with most giving more helpful suggestions now). `rfc1623` output isn't great. cc `@marmeladema` if you want to look through these Let's r? `@oli-obk` since you've commented on the Zulip thread ;)
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 5, 2022
Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#88025 (ScmCredentials netbsd implementation.) - rust-lang#95473 (track individual proc-macro expansions in the self-profiler) - rust-lang#95547 (caution against ptr-to-int transmutes) - rust-lang#95585 (Explain why `&T` is cloned when `T` is not `Clone`) - rust-lang#95591 (Use revisions to track NLL test output (part 1)) - rust-lang#95663 (diagnostics: give a special note for unsafe fn / Fn/FnOnce/FnMut) - rust-lang#95673 (:arrow_up: rust-analyzer) - rust-lang#95681 (resolve: Fix resolution of empty paths passed from rustdoc) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
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.
The idea here is 2 fold: 1) When we eventually do make NLL default on, that PR should be systematic in "delete revisions and corresponding error annotations" 2) This allows us to look at test NLL outputs in chunks. (Though, I've opted here not to "mark" these tests. There are some tests with NLL revisions now that will be missed. I expect we do a second pass once we have all the tests with NLL revisions; these tests should be easy enough to eyeball.)
The actual review here should be "easy", but a bit tedious. I expect we should manually go through each test output and confirm it's okay.
The majority of these are either: 1) Only span change (the one I see most common is highlighting an entire function call, rather than just the function name in that call) 2) "E0308 mismatched types" -> "lifetime does not live long enough" 3) "E0495 cannot infer an appropriate lifetime for lifetime parameter" -> "lifetime does not live long enough" 4) "E0312 lifetime of reference outlives lifetime of borrowed content" -> "lifetime does not live long enough" 5) "E0759
XXXhas an anonymous lifetime'_but it needs to satisfy a'staticlifetime requirement" -> "lifetime does not live long enough" 6) "E0623 lifetime mismatch" -> "lifetime does not live long enough"Other than the now lack of an error code, most of these look fine (with most giving more helpful suggestions now).
rfc1623output isn't great.cc @marmeladema if you want to look through these
Let's r? @oli-obk since you've commented on the Zulip thread ;)