Trim whitespace in RemoveLet primary span
Separate `RemoveLet` span into primary span for `let` and removal suggestion span for `let `, so that primary span does not include whitespace.
Fixes: #133031
If a macro statement has been parsed after `else`, suggest a missing `if`:
```
error: expected `{`, found `falsy`
--> $DIR/else-no-if.rs:47:12
|
LL | } else falsy! {} {
| ---- ^^^^^
| |
| expected an `if` or a block after this `else`
|
help: add an `if` if this is the condition of a chained `else if` statement
|
LL | } else if falsy! {} {
| ++
```
Look at the expression that was parsed when trying to recover from a bad `if` condition to determine what was likely intended by the user beyond "maybe this was meant to be an `else` body".
```
error: expected `{`, found `map`
--> $DIR/missing-dot-on-if-condition-expression-fixable.rs:4:30
|
LL | for _ in [1, 2, 3].iter()map(|x| x) {}
| ^^^ expected `{`
|
help: you might have meant to write a method call
|
LL | for _ in [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|x| x) {}
| +
```
Separate `RemoveLet` span into primary span for `let` and removal
suggestion span for `let `, so that primary span does not include
whitespace.
Fixes: #133031
Signed-off-by: Tyrone Wu <wudevelops@gmail.com>
Use `token_descr` more in error messages
This is the first two commits from #124141, put into their own PR to get things rolling. Commit messages have the details.
r? ``@estebank``
cc ``@petrochenkov``
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`
```
Much like the previous commit.
I think the removal of "the token" in each message is fine here. There
are many more error messages that mention tokens without saying "the
token" than those that do say it.
By using `token_descr`, as is done for many other errors, we can get
slightly better descriptions in error messages, e.g.
"macro expansion ignores token `let` and any following" becomes
"macro expansion ignores keyword `let` and any tokens following".
This will be more important once invisible delimiters start being
mentioned in error messages -- without this commit, that leads to error
messages such as "error at ``" because invisible delimiters are
pretty printed as an empty string.
Add suggestion for removing invalid path sep `::` in fn def
Add suggestion for removing invalid path separator `::` in function definition.
for example: `fn invalid_path_separator::<T>() {}`
fixes#130791
```
error: expected a pattern, found an expression
--> f889.rs:3:13
|
3 | let (x, y.drop()) = (1, 2); //~ ERROR
| ^^^^^^^^ not a pattern
|
= note: arbitrary expressions are not allowed in patterns: <https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-00-patterns.html>
error[E0532]: expected a pattern, found a function call
--> f889.rs:2:13
|
2 | let (x, drop(y)) = (1, 2); //~ ERROR
| ^^^^ not a tuple struct or tuple variant
|
= note: function calls are not allowed in patterns: <https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-00-patterns.html>
```
Fix#97200.
rustc_expand: remember module `#[path]`s during expansion
During invocation collection, if a module item parsed from a `#[path]` attribute needed a second pass after parsing, its path wouldn't get added to the file path stack, so cycle detection broke. This checks the `#[path]` in such cases, so that it gets added appropriately. I think it should work identically to the case for external modules that don't need a second pass, but I'm not 100% sure.
Fixes#97589
Implement a Method to Seal `DiagInner`'s Suggestions
This PR adds a method on `DiagInner` called `.seal_suggestions()` to prevent new suggestions from being added while preserving existing suggestions.
This is useful because currently there is no way to prevent new suggestions from being added to a diagnostic. `.disable_suggestions()` is the closest but it gets rid of all suggestions before and after the call.
Therefore, `.seal_suggestions()` can be used when, for example, misspelled keyword is detected and reported. In such cases, we may want to prevent other suggestions from being added to the diagnostic, as they would likely be meaningless once the misspelled keyword is identified. For context: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129899#discussion_r1741307132
To store an additional state, the type of the `suggestions` field in `DiagInner` was changed into a three variant enum. While this change affects files across different crates, care was taken to preserve the existing code's semantics. This is validated by the fact that all UI tests pass without any modifications.
r? chenyukang
Suggest the correct pattern syntax 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.
This PR detects misspelled keywords using two heuristics:
1. Lowercasing the unexpected identifier.
2. Using edit distance to find a keyword similar to the unexpected identifier.
However, it does not detect each and every misspelled keyword to
minimize false positives and ambiguities. More details about the
implementation can be found in the comments.
For codepoint boundary assertion triggered by a let stmt compound
assignment removal suggestion when encountering recovered multi-byte
compound ops.
Issue: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128845>
Add limit for unclosed delimiters in lexer diagnostic
Fixes#127868
The first commit shows the original diagnostic, and the second commit shows the changes.
Improve `extern "<abi>" unsafe fn()` error message
These errors were already reported in #87217, and fixed by #87235 but missed the case of an explicit ABI.
This PR does not cover multiple keywords like `extern "C" pub const unsafe fn()`, but I don't know what a good way to cover this would be. It also seems rarer than `extern "C" unsafe` which I saw happen a few times in workshops.
