Fixed: Multiple errors on single typo in match pattern #55156

PramodBisht · 2018-10-17T16:17:27Z

Here we have fixed the case where we were throwing two diagnostic messages E0026 and E0027 for same case.

Example

error[E0026]: variant `A::A` does not have a field named `fob`
  --> src/test/ui/issue-52717.rs:20:12
   |
20 |     A::A { fob } => { println!("{}", fob); }
   |            ^^^ variant `A::A` does not have this field

error[E0027]: pattern does not mention field `foo`
  --> src/test/ui/issue-52717.rs:20:5
   |
20 |     A::A { fob } => { println!("{}", fob); }
   |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^ missing field `foo`

error: aborting due to 2 previous errors

Here above we can see that both E0026 and E0027 are depicting
same thing.

So, to fix this issue, we are simply checking if for last element of inexistent_fields is there any value lies in unmentioned_fields using levenshtein algorithm, if it does then for that case we are simply deleting element from unmentioned_fields. More or less, now instead of showing separate message in E0027 we are giving extra hint on E0026

r? @estebank

estebank

Couple of nitpicks, but lgtm

estebank · 2018-10-17T16:51:08Z

src/test/ui/issues/issue-17800.stderr

+   |                            ^^^^^
+   |                            |
+   |                            variant `MyOption::MySome` does not have this field
+   |                            help: did you mean: `0`


This is unfortunate, but not a regression as we were already providing this suggestion/error. Ideally it should actually suggest MyOption::MySome(42)... Not a blocker for this PR, but lets open a follow up ticket.

src/librustc_typeck/check/_match.rs

estebank · 2018-10-17T17:00:37Z

src/librustc_typeck/check/_match.rs

+                                        Symbol::intern(field.to_string().as_str()))
+                                        .collect::<Vec<Symbol>>();
+                    let suggested_name = find_best_match_for_name(input.iter(),
+                                                                &ident.name.as_str(), None);


Fix indentation above.

which IDE or tools I should use to detect this issues?

Generally, you can make your changes, run rustfmt on the file and only take the changes for the code you changed :-/

That workflow is annoying enough that I just memorized the most relevant rules. Basically, if you have multiple lines

like(this, right, here);

you want them to be aligned to the (, which is why there's a preference to

this_other( indentation, of, multiple, args, );

as it is independent of function name length.

Here we have fixed the case where we were throwing two diagnostic messages `E0026` and `E0027` for same case like this Example error[E0026]: variant `A::A` does not have a field named `fob` --> src/test/ui/issue-52717.rs:20:12 | 20 | A::A { fob } => { println!("{}", fob); } | ^^^ variant `A::A` does not have this field error[E0027]: pattern does not mention field `foo` --> src/test/ui/issue-52717.rs:20:5 | 20 | A::A { fob } => { println!("{}", fob); } | ^^^^^^^^^^^^ missing field `foo` error: aborting due to 2 previous errors Here above we can see that both `E0026` and `E0027` are depicting same thing. So, to fix this issue, we are simply checking element of `inexistent_fields` is there any value lies in `unmentioned_fields` using Levenshtein algorithm, if does then for that case we are simply deleting element from `unmentioned_fields`. More or less now instead of showing separate message in `E0027` we are giving extra hint on `E0026` Address: rust-lang#52717

PramodBisht · 2018-10-19T12:20:43Z

r? @estebank again

estebank · 2018-10-19T17:42:01Z

src/test/ui/issue-52717.rs

+fn main() {
+  let x = A::A { foo: 3 };
+  match x {
+    A::A { fob } => { println!("{}", fob); }


There's another case that we're not handling (but it's fine):

A::A { fob } => { println!("{}", foo); }

In the present case after applying the suggestion, the code will complain about the printed fob, while in the quoted case we'll have two complains, one about fob and another about the printed foo.

It'll be interesting coming up with a solution for this as a follow up.

Working toward that :)

estebank · 2018-10-19T17:42:14Z

@bors r+

bors · 2018-10-19T17:42:15Z

📌 Commit 978dc3d has been approved by estebank

@estebank

Fixed: Multiple errors on single typo in match pattern Here we have fixed the case where we were throwing two diagnostic messages `E0026` and `E0027` for same case. Example ``` error[E0026]: variant `A::A` does not have a field named `fob` --> src/test/ui/issue-52717.rs:20:12 | 20 | A::A { fob } => { println!("{}", fob); } | ^^^ variant `A::A` does not have this field error[E0027]: pattern does not mention field `foo` --> src/test/ui/issue-52717.rs:20:5 | 20 | A::A { fob } => { println!("{}", fob); } | ^^^^^^^^^^^^ missing field `foo` error: aborting due to 2 previous errors ``` Here above we can see that both `E0026` and `E0027` are depicting same thing. So, to fix this issue, we are simply checking if for last element of `inexistent_fields` is there any value lies in `unmentioned_fields` using levenshtein algorithm, if it does then for that case we are simply deleting element from `unmentioned_fields`. More or less, now instead of showing separate message in `E0027` we are giving extra hint on `E0026` r? @estebank

bors · 2018-10-20T19:46:02Z

⌛ Testing commit 978dc3d with merge 155510e...

bors · 2018-10-20T22:23:31Z

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: estebank
Pushing 155510e to master...

@ghost

Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - #55156 (Fixed: Multiple errors on single typo in match pattern) - #55189 (update books for the next release) - #55193 (make asm diagnostic instruction optional) - #55203 (Write an initial version of the `program_clauses` callback) - #55213 (ignore target folders) Failed merges: r? @ghost

rust-highfive assigned estebank Oct 17, 2018

rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Oct 17, 2018

PramodBisht force-pushed the issue/52717 branch from efeb079 to 487d580 Compare October 17, 2018 16:27

estebank approved these changes Oct 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

PramodBisht force-pushed the issue/52717 branch from 487d580 to 66c4e1f Compare October 19, 2018 08:20

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

PramodBisht force-pushed the issue/52717 branch from 66c4e1f to 978dc3d Compare October 19, 2018 10:35

estebank reviewed Oct 19, 2018

View reviewed changes

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-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Oct 19, 2018

Manishearth mentioned this pull request Oct 20, 2018

Rollup of 5 pull requests #55230

Merged

bors merged commit 978dc3d into rust-lang:master Oct 20, 2018

PramodBisht deleted the issue/52717 branch October 21, 2018 12:13

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fixed: Multiple errors on single typo in match pattern #55156

Fixed: Multiple errors on single typo in match pattern #55156

PramodBisht commented Oct 17, 2018

estebank left a comment

estebank Oct 17, 2018

estebank Oct 17, 2018

PramodBisht Oct 17, 2018

estebank Oct 17, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

PramodBisht commented Oct 19, 2018

estebank Oct 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

PramodBisht Oct 19, 2018

PramodBisht Oct 20, 2018

estebank commented Oct 19, 2018

bors commented Oct 19, 2018

bors commented Oct 20, 2018

bors commented Oct 20, 2018

Fixed: Multiple errors on single typo in match pattern #55156

Fixed: Multiple errors on single typo in match pattern #55156

Conversation

PramodBisht commented Oct 17, 2018

estebank left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

estebank Oct 17, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

estebank Oct 17, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

PramodBisht Oct 17, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

estebank Oct 17, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

PramodBisht commented Oct 19, 2018

estebank Oct 19, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

PramodBisht Oct 19, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

PramodBisht Oct 20, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

estebank commented Oct 19, 2018

bors commented Oct 19, 2018

bors commented Oct 20, 2018

bors commented Oct 20, 2018

estebank Oct 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading