about summary refs log tree commit diff
path: root/tests/ui/try-block
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorLines
2025-04-10replace `//@ compile-flags: --edition` with `//@ edition`Pietro Albini-17/+17
2025-02-18Don't mention `FromResidual` on bad `?`Esteban Küber-1/+0
Unless `try_trait_v2` is enabled, don't mention that `FromResidual` isn't implemented for a specific type when the implicit `From` conversion of a `?` fails. For the end user on stable, `?` might as well be a compiler intrinsic, so we remove that note to avoid further confusion and allowing other parts of the error to be more prominent. ``` error[E0277]: `?` couldn't convert the error to `u8` --> $DIR/bad-interconversion.rs:4:20 | LL | fn result_to_result() -> Result<u64, u8> { | --------------- expected `u8` because of this LL | Ok(Err(123_i32)?) | ------------^ the trait `From<i32>` is not implemented for `u8` | | | this can't be annotated with `?` because it has type `Result<_, i32>` | = note: the question mark operation (`?`) implicitly performs a conversion on the error value using the `From` trait = help: the following other types implement trait `From<T>`: `u8` implements `From<Char>` `u8` implements `From<bool>` ```
2024-11-02Add trait diff highlighting logic and use it in E0277Esteban Küber-1/+2
When a trait is not implemented for a type, but there *is* an `impl` for another type or different trait params, we format the output to use highlighting in the same way that E0308 does for types. The logic accounts for 3 cases: - When both the type and trait in the expected predicate and the candidate are different - When only the types are different - When only the trait generic params are different For each case, we use slightly different formatting and wording.
2024-10-29Remove detail from label/note that is already available in other noteEsteban Küber-1/+1
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in "the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements, making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels) harder to read. ``` error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied --> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13 | LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None }; | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy` | = note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy` note: required by a bound in `IsCopy` --> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17 | LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T } | ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy` ``` vs the prior ``` error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied --> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13 | LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None }; | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy` | = note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy` note: required by a bound in `IsCopy` --> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17 | LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T } | ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy` ```
2024-10-16Stop inverting expectation in normalization errorsMichael Goulet-9/+4
2024-07-26Peel off explicit (or implicit) deref before suggesting clone on move error ↵Michael Goulet-5/+0
in borrowck
2024-07-04Use shorter span for float literal suggestionEsteban Küber-4/+6
2024-04-11Fix accuracy of `T: Clone` check in suggestionEsteban Küber-0/+5
2024-02-16[AUTO-GENERATED] Migrate ui tests from `//` to `//@` directives许杰友 Jieyou Xu (Joe)-28/+28
2024-02-01add test for try-block-in-match-armJeremiah Senkpiel-0/+11
This is noted as an implementation concern under the tracking issue for `?` and `try` blocks. (Issue 31436)
2024-01-30Provide more context on derived obligation error primary labelEsteban Küber-1/+1
Expand the primary span of E0277 when the immediate unmet bound is not what the user wrote: ``` error[E0277]: the trait bound `i32: Bar` is not satisfied --> f100.rs:6:6 | 6 | <i32 as Foo>::foo(); | ^^^ the trait `Bar` is not implemented for `i32`, which is required by `i32: Foo` | help: this trait has no implementations, consider adding one --> f100.rs:2:1 | 2 | trait Bar {} | ^^^^^^^^^ note: required for `i32` to implement `Foo` --> f100.rs:3:14 | 3 | impl<T: Bar> Foo for T {} | --- ^^^ ^ | | | unsatisfied trait bound introduced here ``` Fix #40120.
2023-12-05Provide context when `?` can't be called because of `Result<_, E>`Esteban Küber-1/+3
When a method chain ending in `?` causes an E0277 because the expression's `Result::Err` variant doesn't have a type that can be converted to the `Result<_, E>` type parameter in the return type, provide additional context of which parts of the chain can and can't support the `?` operator. ``` error[E0277]: `?` couldn't convert the error to `String` --> $DIR/question-mark-result-err-mismatch.rs:28:25 | LL | fn bar() -> Result<(), String> { | ------------------ expected `String` because of this LL | let x = foo(); | ----- this can be annotated with `?` because it has type `Result<String, String>` LL | let one = x LL | .map(|s| ()) | ----------- this can be annotated with `?` because it has type `Result<(), String>` LL | .map_err(|_| ())?; | ---------------^ the trait `From<()>` is not implemented for `String` | | | this can't be annotated with `?` because it has type `Result<(), ()>` | = note: the question mark operation (`?`) implicitly performs a conversion on the error value using the `From` trait = help: the following other types implement trait `From<T>`: <String as From<char>> <String as From<Box<str>>> <String as From<Cow<'a, str>>> <String as From<&str>> <String as From<&mut str>> <String as From<&String>> = note: required for `Result<(), String>` to implement `FromResidual<Result<Infallible, ()>>` ``` Fix #72124.
2023-11-24Show number in error message even for one errorNilstrieb-3/+3
Co-authored-by: Adrian <adrian.iosdev@gmail.com>
2023-10-02Point out the actual mismatch errorMichael Goulet-0/+1
2023-06-12Adjust UI tests for `unit_bindings`许杰友 Jieyou Xu (Joe)-1/+1
- Either explicitly annotate `let x: () = expr;` where `x` has unit type, or remove the unit binding to leave only `expr;` instead. - Fix disjoint-capture-in-same-closure test
2023-01-15Tweak E0597Esteban Küber-8/+9
CC #99430
2023-01-11Move /src/test to /testsAlbert Larsan-0/+757