-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
Update E0220 message to new format #35412
Conversation
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @jonathandturner (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
Looks good. Before we take the PR, please squash the 2 commits down to 1 commit. |
Great! @bors r+ rollup |
📌 Commit 0e13b63 has been approved by |
Update E0220 message to new format Part of rust-lang#35233 . Fixes rust-lang#35385. r? @jonathandturner Should it keep E0191?
From a local build of the rollup #35462 which included this PR, I believe that this PR causes the Also, @jonathandturner from looking at the diff, the |
@jonathandturner Thanks for the info, I just noticed and wanted to ask about it :) However shouldn't the |
@TimNN - it reads better, but it's also longer. Perhaps a phrasing like "associated type |
@jonathandturner I (personally) like that suggestion very much! |
@jonathandturner so this PR needs to be built after E0191 right? or is it another problem? Can I help? Also I'm taking you suggestion of removing "in {}" into the E0220 phrase |
@chamoysvoice - sorry, I missed this question. And yes, please take the suggestion to shorten the label |
OOOPS! missing parenthesis, for some reason my local branch has that parenthesis, somehow I didn't merge it, no worries I'll fix it. |
Thanks! @bors r+ rollup |
📌 Commit 1c37892 has been approved by |
Update E0220 message to new format Part of rust-lang#35233 . Fixes rust-lang#35385. r? @jonathandturner Should it keep E0191?
Update E0220 message to new format Part of rust-lang#35233 . Fixes rust-lang#35385. r? @jonathandturner Should it keep E0191?
@bors r- failed on travis |
@chamoysvoice - You'll need to fix some of the test failures before this PR can be accepted.
You can run the compile-fail test suite to make sure you've fixed everything with:
|
@jonathandturner This build is failing because E0191 is throwing an error right? E0191 should't be updated first? I can't find my mistake |
@chamoysvoice - have you tried updating with a It's possible that another PR changed things since then, so you might have to update these tests to work with your fixes. |
@jonathandturner E0191 #35396 is still failing the build, but is already merged to master, should I pull from master then? |
@jonathandturner NB: One needs to use |
@eddyb - updated |
@jonathandturner So, this need to be rebuilt and thats all right? |
@chamoysvoice - yes, your rebase should be on top of master. That should let you pull in the new fixes that are causing the issue travis-ci is seeing. |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #36862) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Part of #35233 .
Fixes #35385.
r? @jonathandturner
Should it keep E0191?