-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.4k
Make missing_fragment_specifier
an unconditional error
#128425
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Make missing_fragment_specifier
an unconditional error
#128425
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
392a2c7
to
c2492ec
Compare
This is just to test the diagnostics, none of the possible code cleanup is included. @petrochenkov please take a look when you get the chance and start crater if the change seems correct. @bors try |
…unconditional, r=<try> [crater] Make `missing_fragment_specifier` an unconditional error This was attempted in [1] then reverted in [2] because of fallout. Recently, this was made an edition-dependent error in [3]. Experiment with turning missing fragment specifiers an unconditional error again. More context: rust-lang#128006 [1]: rust-lang#75516 [2]: rust-lang#80210 [3]: rust-lang#128006
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
@craterbot check |
👌 Experiment ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more |
🚧 Experiment ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more |
🎉 Experiment
|
Like the previous run, almost all of these (361) come from
We could let this simmer for a while with the new error in deps level (#128122) and/or the edition-dependent lint (#128006). I don't really know how to feel about these results because all of the relevant clap versions have been yanked for ~4 years, per clap-rs/clap#2076. Requesting compiler feedback for how to proceed. Context: this was made an e2024 error in #128006, making it an error in all editions is being considered here. @rustbot label +I-compiler-nominated |
Discussed briefly in the compiler team triage meeting. Given that nearly all regressions are on very old versions of |
Thanks for discussing this. I'll wait for the next beta branch so #128122 is on stable for at least a cycle, then continue pushing this forward. |
To reflect my above comment @rustbot blocked |
The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete. As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed. This will be merged soon. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me.
Also, I checked the Reference, and it doesn't seem anything needs to happen there. It's already correct. On the edition guide, we'll probably want to keep that page but add a note at the top that mentions that after shipping Rust 2024, we later made this lint into a hard error in all editions. If you can add that to then we'll get that merged. Also, it looks like there are conflicts here to resolve. @rustbot author |
Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use |
This lint is planned to be removed in [1], but CI is failing due to linkcheck issues in the edition guide. Remove links and add a note that the lint has become an error in all editions. [1]: rust-lang/rust#128425
This lint is planned to be removed in [1], but CI is failing due to linkcheck issues in the edition guide. Remove links and add a note that the lint has become an error in all editions. [1]: rust-lang/rust#128425
This lint is planned to be removed in [1], but CI is failing due to linkcheck issues in the edition guide. Remove links and add a note that the lint has become an error in all editions. [1]: rust-lang/rust#128425
5f0c38d
to
ed21403
Compare
This lint is `allow`ed in a few places where it doesn't seem to be needed. The `missing_fragment_specifier` lint will be going away in a future version of Rust and replaced with a hard error [1], so update this now to avoid a future `unknown_lints` warning. [1]: rust-lang/rust#128425
This was attempted in [1] then reverted in [2] because of fallout. Recently, this was made an edition-dependent error in [3]. Make missing fragment specifiers an unconditional error again. [1]: rust-lang#75516 [2]: rust-lang#80210 [3]: rust-lang#128006
ed21403
to
5999782
Compare
Finally rebased this, I needed to do a few test updates. @rustbot ready |
There's a list of removed lints in |
This was attempted in 1 then reverted in 2 because of fallout. Recently, this was made an edition-dependent error in 3.
Make missing fragment specifiers an unconditional error again, across all editions.
More context: #128006
Most recent crater: #128425 (comment)
Fixes: #40107
r? @petrochenkov