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

Followup to #1862 #1864

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 27, 2024
Merged

Followup to #1862 #1864

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 6 additions & 3 deletions src/incrcomp-debugging.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -22,8 +22,10 @@ fn bar() { foo(); }
```

This should be read as
> If this (`foo`) is changed, then this (i.e. `bar`)'s TypeckTables would need
to be changed. Also, this
> If this (`foo`) is changed, then this (i.e. `bar`)'s TypeckTables would need to be changed.

Technically, what occurs is that the test is expected to emit the string "OK" on
stderr, associated to this line.

You could also add the lines

Expand All @@ -33,7 +35,8 @@ fn baz() { }
```

Whose meaning is
> If `foo` is changed, then `baz`'s TypeckTables does not need to be changed, as there is no path.
> If `foo` is changed, then `baz`'s TypeckTables does not need to be changed.
> The macro must emit an error, and the error message must contains "no path".

Recall that the `//~ ERROR OK` is a comment from the point of view of the Rust
code we test, but is meaningful from the point of view of the test itself.
Expand Down
Loading