| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
* On suggestions that include deletions, use a diff inspired output format
* When suggesting addition, use `+` as underline
* Color highlight modified span
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we have a tuple struct used with struct we don't want to suggest using
the (valid) struct syntax with numeric field names. Instead we want to
suggest the expected syntax.
Given
```rust
fn main() {
match MyOption::MySome(42) {
MyOption::MySome { x: 42 } => (),
_ => (),
}
}
```
We now emit E0769 "tuple variant `MyOption::MySome` written as struct variant"
instead of E0026 "variant `MyOption::MySome` does not have a field named `x`".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here we have fixed the case where we were throwing two diagnostic
messages `E0026` and `E0027` for same case like this
Example
error[E0026]: variant `A::A` does not have a field named `fob`
--> src/test/ui/issue-52717.rs:20:12
|
20 | A::A { fob } => { println!("{}", fob); }
| ^^^ variant `A::A` does not have this field
error[E0027]: pattern does not mention field `foo`
--> src/test/ui/issue-52717.rs:20:5
|
20 | A::A { fob } => { println!("{}", fob); }
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ missing field `foo`
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
Here above we can see that both `E0026` and `E0027` are depicting
same thing.
So, to fix this issue, we are simply checking element of
`inexistent_fields` is there any value lies in
`unmentioned_fields` using Levenshtein algorithm, if does
then for that case we are simply deleting element from
`unmentioned_fields`. More or less now instead of showing
separate message in `E0027` we are giving extra hint on `E0026`
Address: #52717
|
|
|
