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.

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

revert #48337 (--explain usage note) #48621

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

zackmdavis
Copy link
Member

See discussion on #48550 for justification.

(As the commit messages note, there were some conflicts; this wasn't a sheerly mechanical revert. But this should—pending Travis's verdict—get us back to the old extract-rendered-from-JSON UI testing regime, after which an --explain usage note can be reimplemented in a cleaner way at leisure.)

cc @GuillaumeGomez @estebank

r? @petrochenkov

This reverts commit 1dc2015, which
switched to compiling the UI tests twice rather than extracting the
humanized output from a field in the JSON output.

A conflict in this revert commit had to be fixed manually where changes
introduced in rust-lang#48449 collide with the change we're trying to revert
(from rust-lang#48337).

This is in the matter of rust-lang#48550.

Conflicts:
	src/tools/compiletest/src/runtest.rs
This reverts commit 9b597a1. That
commit added a message informing users about the `rustc --explain`
functionality inside of a `Drop` implementation for `EmitterWriter`. In
addition to exhibiting questionable semantics (printing a
hopefully-helpful message for the user does not seem like a "cleanup"
action), this resulted in divergent behavior between humanized output
and JSON output, because the latter actually instantiates an
`EmitterWriter` for every diagnostic.

Several conflicts in this revert commit had to be fixed manually, again
owing to code-area collision between rust-lang#48449 and rust-lang#48337.

This is in the matter of rust-lang#48550.

Conflicts:
	src/librustc_errors/emitter.rs
@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Feb 28, 2018
@zackmdavis zackmdavis force-pushed the ui_test_efficiencies branch from 84588c1 to a46a511 Compare March 1, 2018 00:40
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

I'm not a big fan of a revert but if we're in a hurry, we don't have a better idea... I have a work in progress to fix this which would allow to just make it work with json output.

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

I have a work in progress to fix this which would allow to just make it work with json output

Ok, let's wait for "--explain usage from json" then.
(I'll probably land this PR instead if "--explain usage from json" do not materialize in couple of weeks.)

@petrochenkov petrochenkov added S-blocked Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Mar 1, 2018
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

The only remaining issue for the fix is some invalid error emission but otherwise it's almost done.

@zackmdavis
Copy link
Member Author

@GuillaumeGomez awesome, let's close this in favor of #48684 💖

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-blocked Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants