Skip to content
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

Fix some suggestions where a Box<T> is expected. #111056

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 8, 2023
Merged

Fix some suggestions where a Box<T> is expected. #111056

merged 1 commit into from
May 8, 2023

Conversation

JohnBobbo96
Copy link
Contributor

This fixes #111011, and also adds a suggestion for boxing a unit type when a Box<T> was expected and an empty block was found.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 1, 2023

r? @davidtwco

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels May 1, 2023
@compiler-errors compiler-errors self-assigned this May 1, 2023
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@compiler-errors compiler-errors left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please squash this into one commit, then I think this is fine to land.

also add a suggestion for boxing empty blocks.
@JohnBobbo96
Copy link
Contributor Author

commits have been squashed.

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 8, 2023

📌 Commit 3598509 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors 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 May 8, 2023
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 8, 2023
Rollup of 7 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#110297 (Make `(try_)subst_and_normalize_erasing_regions` take `EarlyBinder`)
 - rust-lang#110827 (Fix lifetime suggestion for type aliases with objects in them)
 - rust-lang#111022 (Use smaller ints for bitflags)
 - rust-lang#111056 (Fix some suggestions where a `Box<T>` is expected.)
 - rust-lang#111262 (Further normalize msvc-non-utf8-ouput)
 - rust-lang#111265 (Make generics_of has_self on RPITITs delegate to the opaque)
 - rust-lang#111323 (Give a more helpful error when running the rustc shim directly)

Failed merges:

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit aceb5d9 into rust-lang:master May 8, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.71.0 milestone May 8, 2023
@JohnBobbo96 JohnBobbo96 deleted the fix_box_suggestions branch May 22, 2023 20:53
GuillaumeGomez added a commit to GuillaumeGomez/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 27, 2025
…ui-tests, r=compiler-errors

Clean up all dead files inside `tests/ui/`

While rebasing rust-lang#135860 I noticed that there are several dead `*.stderr` files inside `tests/ui/`.

When I checked thoroughly, I found 69 dead `*.$revision.stderr` files, 3 other dead `*.stderr` files and one dead `*.rs` file.

Prior to rust-lang#134808, compiletest's `--bless` didn't remove dead `*.stderr` files when the set of revisions changed in any way (renamings, removals, additions, …) which explains their existence.

Regarding the dead `*.rs` file, that one was located inside an `auxiliary/` directory (together with a `*.stderr` file) despite not being meant to be an auxiliary file (it's not referenced by any `//@ aux-*`, it has an accompanying `*.stderr` file and it's obvious from looking at rust-lang#111056 which added it). Ideally compiletest or tidy would forbid `*.std{out,err}` files inside `auxiliary/` dirs, that would've caught it. I moved it, updated it and turned it into a proper UI test.

---

How to reproduce:

1. Run `rm tests/ui/**/*.stderr`
2. Run `./x test tests/ui --bless` (or similar)
3. Manually / semi-automatically go through all tests that were ignored (likely due to your OS etc. not matching) and restore any stderr files that were overzealously removed

---

r? compiler
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 27, 2025
Rollup merge of rust-lang#136112 - fmease:clean-up-all-dead-files-in-ui-tests, r=compiler-errors

Clean up all dead files inside `tests/ui/`

While rebasing rust-lang#135860 I noticed that there are several dead `*.stderr` files inside `tests/ui/`.

When I checked thoroughly, I found 69 dead `*.$revision.stderr` files, 3 other dead `*.stderr` files and one dead `*.rs` file.

Prior to rust-lang#134808, compiletest's `--bless` didn't remove dead `*.stderr` files when the set of revisions changed in any way (renamings, removals, additions, …) which explains their existence.

Regarding the dead `*.rs` file, that one was located inside an `auxiliary/` directory (together with a `*.stderr` file) despite not being meant to be an auxiliary file (it's not referenced by any `//@ aux-*`, it has an accompanying `*.stderr` file and it's obvious from looking at rust-lang#111056 which added it). Ideally compiletest or tidy would forbid `*.std{out,err}` files inside `auxiliary/` dirs, that would've caught it. I moved it, updated it and turned it into a proper UI test.

---

How to reproduce:

1. Run `rm tests/ui/**/*.stderr`
2. Run `./x test tests/ui --bless` (or similar)
3. Manually / semi-automatically go through all tests that were ignored (likely due to your OS etc. not matching) and restore any stderr files that were overzealously removed

---

r? compiler
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Wrong suggestion for Boxxing body of async closure when expected return type of closure to be Box
8 participants