Suggest the correct pattern syntax on usage of unit variant pattern for a struct variant #129520
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @TaKO8Ki (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (
|
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
tunawasabi
changed the title
compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/lib.rs
Outdated
| } else { | ||
| format!(" {{ {} }}", fields.join(", ")) | ||
| }, | ||
| Applicability::MachineApplicable, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These two suggestions cannot both be MachineApplicable. I would downgrade this down to HasPlaceholders if there are variants.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or honestly, it may be worth just suggesting field: _, field: _ unconditionally (or .. if there are.. e.g. > 4 fields), and adjusting the wording to note that they're being ignored. Two suggestions seems a bit excessive...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alternatively, use span_suggestions which supports MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE suggestions. You'll need to make a single wording for both of them, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK. I fixed the diagnostic to just suggest a placeholder.
compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/lib.rs
Outdated
| err.span_suggestion_verbose( | ||
| qpath.span().shrink_to_hi().to(span.shrink_to_hi()), | ||
| "the struct variant's fields are being ignored", | ||
| " { /* field: _, field: _ */ }", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oof, I meant taking the fields themselves and emitting for each field name name: _. Like,
struct Foo { a: i32, b: i32 }
would result in Foo { a: _, b: _ }.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops, I'll fix it. sorry for my misunderstanding 😭
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Additionally, when there are no fields, I provide a diagnostic use the struct variant pattern syntax instead of the struct variant's field{s} {are} being ignored.
|
@rustbot author |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
tunawasabi
force-pushed
the
suggest-adding-struct-pattern-syntax
branch
from
052eb70
to
ada9ba3
Compare
|
@rustbot review |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
tunawasabi
force-pushed
the
suggest-adding-struct-pattern-syntax
branch
from
ada9ba3
to
f71979b
Compare
|
oh, I forget to remove a comment out from the suggestion. @rustbot author |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
…ttern for a struct variant
tunawasabi
force-pushed
the
suggest-adding-struct-pattern-syntax
branch
from
f71979b
to
2ddcbca
Compare
|
Thanks for the review! I fixed and rebased @rustbot review |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
…attern-syntax, r=compiler-errors Suggest the correct pattern syntax on usage of unit variant pattern for a struct variant Closes rust-lang#126243 I add a suggestion on usage of unit variant pattern for a struct variant.
…kingjubilee Rollup of 14 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#129260 (Don't suggest adding return type for closures with default return type) - rust-lang#129520 (Suggest the correct pattern syntax on usage of unit variant pattern for a struct variant) - rust-lang#129696 (update stdarch) - rust-lang#129759 (Stabilize `const_refs_to_static`) - rust-lang#129835 (enable const-float-classify test, and test_next_up/down on 32bit x86) - rust-lang#129866 (Clarify documentation labelling and definitions for std::collections) - rust-lang#130052 (Don't leave debug locations for constants sitting on the builder indefinitely) - rust-lang#130077 (Fix linking error when compiling for 32-bit watchOS) - rust-lang#130123 (Report the `note` when specified in `diagnostic::on_unimplemented`) - rust-lang#130156 (Add test for S_OBJNAME & update test for LF_BUILDINFO cl and cmd) - rust-lang#130206 (Map `WSAEDQUOT` to `ErrorKind::FilesystemQuotaExceeded`) - rust-lang#130207 (Map `ERROR_CANT_RESOLVE_FILENAME` to `ErrorKind::FilesystemLoop`) - rust-lang#130219 (Fix false positive with `missing_docs` and `#[test]`) - rust-lang#130221 (Make SearchPath::new public) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
…iaskrgr Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#129260 (Don't suggest adding return type for closures with default return type) - rust-lang#129520 (Suggest the correct pattern syntax on usage of unit variant pattern for a struct variant) - rust-lang#129866 (Clarify documentation labelling and definitions for std::collections) - rust-lang#130123 (Report the `note` when specified in `diagnostic::on_unimplemented`) - rust-lang#130161 (refactor merge base logic and fix `x fmt`) - rust-lang#130206 (Map `WSAEDQUOT` to `ErrorKind::FilesystemQuotaExceeded`) - rust-lang#130207 (Map `ERROR_CANT_RESOLVE_FILENAME` to `ErrorKind::FilesystemLoop`) - rust-lang#130219 (Fix false positive with `missing_docs` and `#[test]`) - rust-lang#130221 (Make SearchPath::new public) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Rollup merge of rust-lang#129520 - tunawasabi:suggest-adding-struct-pattern-syntax, r=compiler-errors Suggest the correct pattern syntax on usage of unit variant pattern for a struct variant Closes rust-lang#126243 I add a suggestion on usage of unit variant pattern for a struct variant.
Closes #126243
I add a suggestion on usage of unit variant pattern for a struct variant.