Skip to content

Conversation

@geoffw0
Copy link
Contributor

@geoffw0 geoffw0 commented Oct 15, 2025

Restrict the macro call stats in DatabaseQualityDiagnostics (used on the tool status page) to consider only macros in extracted files (.fromSource()). This focusses the metric on the user code for analysis, and is already the way we measure this in rust/diagnostics/unresolved-macro-calls and rust/summary/summary-statistics.

In the MRVA-1000, this change will reduce the number of projects with warnings about macro resolution on the tool status page from 30 to 16 (21 fixed, 9 unfixed, 7 newly failing), and significantly improves the margin of success in many more projects where we don't believe there is a real problem.

…acted files (.fromSource). This is already the case in other places we measure this.
@geoffw0 geoffw0 added the no-change-note-required This PR does not need a change note label Oct 15, 2025
@geoffw0 geoffw0 requested a review from a team as a code owner October 15, 2025 13:11
@Copilot Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings October 15, 2025 13:11
@geoffw0 geoffw0 added the Rust Pull requests that update Rust code label Oct 15, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

This PR improves the macro call statistics in DatabaseQualityDiagnostics by restricting the analysis to only consider macros in extracted source files (using .fromSource()). This change focuses the metric on user code rather than including all macro calls, aligning with existing measurement approaches in other diagnostic queries.

Key changes:

  • Modified macro call statistics to only count macros from source files
  • Applied the .fromSource() filter to both successful and failed macro expansion counts

@geoffw0
Copy link
Contributor Author

geoffw0 commented Oct 15, 2025

DCA LGTM. Two diagnostics issues are fixed there.

@geoffw0 geoffw0 marked this pull request as draft October 16, 2025 15:53
@geoffw0
Copy link
Contributor Author

geoffw0 commented Oct 16, 2025

Put back to draft - I think we can do better now using the new tools in #20655 .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

no-change-note-required This PR does not need a change note Rust Pull requests that update Rust code

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant