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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Put back "try with rustc --explain E0XXX" #48041

Closed
GuillaumeGomez opened this issue Feb 6, 2018 · 6 comments
Closed

Put back "try with rustc --explain E0XXX" #48041

GuillaumeGomez opened this issue Feb 6, 2018 · 6 comments
Assignees
@GuillaumeGomez
Labels
A-diagnostics Area: Messages for errors, warnings, and lints C-feature-request Category: A feature request, i.e: not implemented / a PR. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

This sentence has been removed here in this PR. However, I think it's quite useful considering the amount of extra information it provides.

cc @rust-lang/compiler
@kennytm kennytm added A-diagnostics Area: Messages for errors, warnings, and lints T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. C-feature-request Category: A feature request, i.e: not implemented / a PR. labels Feb 6, 2018
@estebank
Copy link
Contributor

estebank commented Feb 6, 2018

I would like to wait for a bit until we have a good story and coverage around -Zteach (at least on nightly). I think that's going to be more useful than always suggesting --explain E0XXX.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

The old "--explain" suggestion system was a bit heavy. By rewording it, it might be better than what it was. However, -Zteach seems to be a potential great replacement in the future. I think that at first, we should put back --explain while waiting for -Zteach to be complete. What do you think about this?

@estebank
Copy link
Contributor

estebank commented Feb 6, 2018

I think it is reasonable to go that way. I don't know if there was any conversation before removal. I would be very much in favor of having a single note suggesting using --explain generically though. I wouldn't want to add 2 more lines per error with a code, it is redundant and would get old very quickly. It'd be even great if there were a way to silence it (which makes me go back to the increasing need of having a rustc.toml config file somewhere...).

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

I was thinking about just adding a line at the end of errors. Something like: "You got error(s), if you want more explanations about this/them, try with rustc --explain E0XXX" (XXX being one of the errors reported).

@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

I like the idea of putting it as part of the final "here's how many errors you got" message.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

I'll write a PR and we'll iterate about the formulation then.

@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez self-assigned this Feb 7, 2018
@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez mentioned this issue Feb 18, 2018
Merged
bors added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2018
@bors
Auto merge of #48337 - GuillaumeGomez:rustc-explain, r=estebank
bedbad6 
Rustc explain

Fixes #48041.

To make the review easier, I separated tests update to code update. Also, I used this script to generate new ui tests stderr:

```python
from os import listdir
from os.path import isdir, isfile, join

PATH = "src/test/ui"

def do_something(path):
    files = [join(path, f) for f in listdir(path)]

    for f in files:
        if isdir(f):
            do_something(f)
            continue
        if not isfile(f) or not f.endswith(".stderr"):
            continue
        x = open(f, "r")
        content = x.read().strip()
        if "error[E" not in content:
            continue
        errors = dict()
        for y in content.splitlines():
            if y.startswith("error[E"):
                errors[y[6:11]] = True
        errors = sorted(errors.keys())
        if len(errors) < 1:
            print("weird... {}".format(f))
            continue
        if len(errors) > 1:
            content += "\n\nYou've got a few errors: {}".format(", ".join(errors))
            content += "\nIf you want more information on an error, try using \"rustc --explain {}\"".format(errors[0])
        else:
            content += "\n\nIf you want more information on this error, try using \"rustc --explain {}\"".format(errors[0])
        content += "\n"
        x = open(f, "w")
        x.write(content)

do_something(PATH)
```
@zackmdavis zackmdavis mentioned this issue Mar 3, 2018
Merged
@ehuss ehuss mentioned this issue Dec 5, 2020
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez

Labels
A-diagnostics Area: Messages for errors, warnings, and lints C-feature-request Category: A feature request, i.e: not implemented / a PR. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@kennytm @nikomatsakis @estebank @GuillaumeGomez