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.
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
librustc_errors: Extract sugg/subst handling into method #64058
Conversation
The job Click to expand the log.
I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
An initial refactoring before working on rust-lang#61809. This moves the whole block into a method so that it can be reused in the annotate-snippet output. It's already used in the new emitter, but there's no UI tests with suggestions included in this PR. A first look at some UI tests with suggestions showed that there's some more work to do in [annotate-snippet-rs][annotate-snippet-rs] before the new output is closer to the current one.
@bors r+ |
|
…bank librustc_errors: Extract sugg/subst handling into method An initial refactoring before working on rust-lang#61809. This moves the whole block into a method so that it can be reused in the annotate-snippet emitter. The method is already used in the new emitter, but there's no UI tests with suggestions included in this PR. A first look at some UI tests with suggestions showed that there's some more work to do in [annotate-snippet-rs][annotate-snippet-rs] before the new output is closer to the current one, so I opted to do that in a second step. r? @estebank [annotate-snippet-rs]: https://github.com/rust-lang/annotate-snippets-rs
Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - #64049 (Emit a single error on if expr with expectation and no else clause) - #64056 (Account for arbitrary self types in E0599) - #64058 (librustc_errors: Extract sugg/subst handling into method) - #64063 (Fix const_err with `-(-0.0)`) - #64071 (use just one name when parameters and fields are the same) Failed merges: r? @ghost
Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - #64049 (Emit a single error on if expr with expectation and no else clause) - #64056 (Account for arbitrary self types in E0599) - #64058 (librustc_errors: Extract sugg/subst handling into method) - #64063 (Fix const_err with `-(-0.0)`) - #64071 (use just one name when parameters and fields are the same) Failed merges: r? @ghost
…bank librustc_errors: Extract sugg/subst handling into method An initial refactoring before working on rust-lang#61809. This moves the whole block into a method so that it can be reused in the annotate-snippet emitter. The method is already used in the new emitter, but there's no UI tests with suggestions included in this PR. A first look at some UI tests with suggestions showed that there's some more work to do in [annotate-snippet-rs][annotate-snippet-rs] before the new output is closer to the current one, so I opted to do that in a second step. r? @estebank [annotate-snippet-rs]: https://github.com/rust-lang/annotate-snippets-rs
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - #63774 (Fix `window.hashchange is not a function`) - #64044 (Rustdoc: formatting to buffers) - #64049 (Emit a single error on if expr with expectation and no else clause) - #64056 (Account for arbitrary self types in E0599) - #64058 (librustc_errors: Extract sugg/subst handling into method) - #64063 (Fix const_err with `-(-0.0)`) - #64071 (use just one name when parameters and fields are the same) - #64096 (Fix regex replacement in theme detection) - #64104 (Emit error on intrinsic to fn ptr casts) Failed merges: r? @ghost
…bank librustc_errors: Extract sugg/subst handling into method An initial refactoring before working on rust-lang#61809. This moves the whole block into a method so that it can be reused in the annotate-snippet emitter. The method is already used in the new emitter, but there's no UI tests with suggestions included in this PR. A first look at some UI tests with suggestions showed that there's some more work to do in [annotate-snippet-rs][annotate-snippet-rs] before the new output is closer to the current one, so I opted to do that in a second step. r? @estebank [annotate-snippet-rs]: https://github.com/rust-lang/annotate-snippets-rs
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - #64049 (Emit a single error on if expr with expectation and no else clause) - #64056 (Account for arbitrary self types in E0599) - #64058 (librustc_errors: Extract sugg/subst handling into method) - #64063 (Fix const_err with `-(-0.0)`) - #64071 (use just one name when parameters and fields are the same) - #64104 (Emit error on intrinsic to fn ptr casts) Failed merges: r? @ghost
…bank librustc_errors: Extract sugg/subst handling into method An initial refactoring before working on rust-lang#61809. This moves the whole block into a method so that it can be reused in the annotate-snippet emitter. The method is already used in the new emitter, but there's no UI tests with suggestions included in this PR. A first look at some UI tests with suggestions showed that there's some more work to do in [annotate-snippet-rs][annotate-snippet-rs] before the new output is closer to the current one, so I opted to do that in a second step. r? @estebank [annotate-snippet-rs]: https://github.com/rust-lang/annotate-snippets-rs
Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - #64049 (Emit a single error on if expr with expectation and no else clause) - #64056 (Account for arbitrary self types in E0599) - #64058 (librustc_errors: Extract sugg/subst handling into method) - #64071 (use just one name when parameters and fields are the same) - #64104 (Emit error on intrinsic to fn ptr casts) Failed merges: r? @ghost
An initial refactoring before working on #61809.
This moves the whole block into a method so that it can be reused in the
annotate-snippet emitter. The method is already used in the new emitter, but
there's no UI tests with suggestions included in this PR.
A first look at some UI tests with suggestions showed that there's some
more work to do in annotate-snippet-rs before the new output is closer to the
current one, so I opted to do that in a second step.
r? @estebank