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 "Promote missing_fragment_specifier to hard error" #75516 #80210

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 22, 2020

Conversation

wesleywiser
Copy link
Member

Revert of #75516 per #76605.

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

Note: I only reverted the two commits in #75516 which made the lint a hard error. I did not revert the other two commits in the PR as they seemed fine to leave IMO (commits 84fcd0d and eb4d6b5).

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

  • Pull requests are usually filed against the master branch for this repo, but this one is against beta. Please double check that you specified the right target!

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Dec 20, 2020
@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum added beta-accepted Accepted for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. beta-nominated Nominated for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. labels Dec 20, 2020
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

@bors r+ rollup=never p=1

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 20, 2020

📌 Commit f2c8a38 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

@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 Dec 20, 2020
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

The job x86_64-gnu-llvm-8 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
.................................................................................................... 8900/11099
.................................................................................................... 9000/11099
.................................................................................................... 9100/11099
.......i............................................................................................ 9200/11099
......................................iiiiii..iiiiii.i.............................................. 9300/11099
.................................................................................................... 9500/11099
.................................................................................................... 9600/11099
.................................................................................................... 9700/11099
.................................................................................................... 9800/11099
---
Suite("src/test/codegen") not skipped for "bootstrap::test::Codegen" -- not in ["src/tools/tidy"]
Check compiletest suite=codegen mode=codegen (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)

running 229 tests
iiiiiiii......iii...ii..i.ii.........i...........i.............i.............i.i...iii.......iii.... 100/229
......i....i.............i.i.i...iii...iiii....................................ii..i...i..i......... 200/229
....iii.ii...................

 finished in 3.150 seconds
Suite("src/test/codegen-units") not skipped for "bootstrap::test::CodegenUnits" -- not in ["src/tools/tidy"]
Check compiletest suite=codegen-units mode=codegen-units (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
---
Suite("src/test/assembly") not skipped for "bootstrap::test::Assembly" -- not in ["src/tools/tidy"]
Check compiletest suite=assembly mode=assembly (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)

running 26 tests
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

 finished in 0.143 seconds
Suite("src/test/incremental") not skipped for "bootstrap::test::Incremental" -- not in ["src/tools/tidy"]
Check compiletest suite=incremental mode=incremental (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
---
Suite("src/test/debuginfo") not skipped for "bootstrap::test::Debuginfo" -- not in ["src/tools/tidy"]
Check compiletest suite=debuginfo mode=debuginfo (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)

running 116 tests
iiiiiiiiii.i.i..i..i..ii.....ii....ii..........iiii.........i.....i...i.......ii.i.ii.....iiii.....i 100/116
test result: ok. 78 passed; 0 failed; 38 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out

 finished in 2.818 seconds
Suite("src/test/ui-fulldeps") not skipped for "bootstrap::test::UiFullDeps" -- not in ["src/tools/tidy"]
---
   Compiling tempfile v3.1.0
   Compiling serde_json v1.0.59
   Compiling lint-docs v0.1.0 (/checkout/src/tools/lint-docs)
    Finished release [optimized] target(s) in 9.35s
error: failed to test example in lint docs for `missing_fragment_specifier` in /checkout/compiler/rustc_lint_defs/src/builtin.rs:1231: lint docs should contain the line `### Example`


command did not execute successfully: "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage0-tools-bin/lint-docs" "--src" "/checkout/compiler" "--out" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/md-doc/rustc/src/lints" "--rustc" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/bin/rustc" "--rustc-target" "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"


failed to run: /checkout/obj/build/bootstrap/debug/bootstrap --stage 2 test --exclude src/tools/tidy
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:32:02

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 20, 2020

⌛ Testing commit f2c8a38 with merge 71f9e69c89b63435b3d9ebf6706684140a23e257...

@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

The job dist-aarch64-linux failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
[RUSTC-TIMING] lint_docs test:false 0.457
    Finished release [optimized] target(s) in 8.03s
[TIMING] ToolBuild { compiler: Compiler { stage: 0, host: TargetSelection { triple: "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu", file: None } }, target: TargetSelection { triple: "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu", file: None }, tool: "lint-docs", path: "src/tools/lint-docs", mode: ToolBootstrap, is_optional_tool: false, source_type: InTree, extra_features: [] } -- 8.047
[TIMING] LintDocs { compiler: Compiler { stage: 0, host: TargetSelection { triple: "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu", file: None } }, target: TargetSelection { triple: "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu", file: None } } -- 0.000
error: failed to test example in lint docs for `missing_fragment_specifier` in /checkout/compiler/rustc_lint_defs/src/builtin.rs:1231: lint docs should contain the line `### Example`


command did not execute successfully: "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage0-tools-bin/lint-docs" "--src" "/checkout/compiler" "--out" "/checkout/obj/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/md-doc/rustc/src/lints" "--rustc" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/bin/rustc" "--rustc-target" "aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu"


failed to run: /checkout/obj/build/bootstrap/debug/bootstrap dist --host aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu --target aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:18:20

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 20, 2020

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@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 Dec 20, 2020
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 21, 2020

📌 Commit 773af1b6ec36ea47cc5327c29ca23ef306c08477 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

@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 Dec 21, 2020
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

The job x86_64-gnu-llvm-8 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
.................................................................................................... 8900/11099
.................................................................................................... 9000/11099
.................................................................................................... 9100/11099
.......i............................................................................................ 9200/11099
......................................iiiiii..iiiiii.i.............................................. 9300/11099
.................................................................................................... 9500/11099
.................................................................................................... 9600/11099
.................................................................................................... 9700/11099
.................................................................................................... 9800/11099
---
Suite("src/test/codegen") not skipped for "bootstrap::test::Codegen" -- not in ["src/tools/tidy"]
Check compiletest suite=codegen mode=codegen (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)

running 229 tests
iiiiiiii......iii...ii..i.ii.........i...........i.............i.............i.i...iii.......iii.... 100/229
......i....i.............i.i.i...iii...iiii.....................................ii.i..i...i......... 200/229
....iii.ii...................

 finished in 3.000 seconds
Suite("src/test/codegen-units") not skipped for "bootstrap::test::CodegenUnits" -- not in ["src/tools/tidy"]
Check compiletest suite=codegen-units mode=codegen-units (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
---
Suite("src/test/assembly") not skipped for "bootstrap::test::Assembly" -- not in ["src/tools/tidy"]
Check compiletest suite=assembly mode=assembly (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)

running 26 tests
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

 finished in 0.137 seconds
Suite("src/test/incremental") not skipped for "bootstrap::test::Incremental" -- not in ["src/tools/tidy"]
Check compiletest suite=incremental mode=incremental (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
---
Suite("src/test/debuginfo") not skipped for "bootstrap::test::Debuginfo" -- not in ["src/tools/tidy"]
Check compiletest suite=debuginfo mode=debuginfo (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)

running 116 tests
iiiiiiiiii.i.i..i....iii....i.i.....ii.........iiii.........i.....i...i.......ii.i.ii.....iiii.....i 100/116
test result: ok. 78 passed; 0 failed; 38 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out

 finished in 2.826 seconds
Suite("src/test/ui-fulldeps") not skipped for "bootstrap::test::UiFullDeps" -- not in ["src/tools/tidy"]
---
   Compiling tempfile v3.1.0
   Compiling serde_json v1.0.59
   Compiling lint-docs v0.1.0 (/checkout/src/tools/lint-docs)
    Finished release [optimized] target(s) in 8.54s
error: failed to test example in lint docs for `missing_fragment_specifier` in /checkout/compiler/rustc_lint_defs/src/builtin.rs:1231: lint docs should start with the text "The `missing_fragment_specifier` lint" to introduce the lint


command did not execute successfully: "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage0-tools-bin/lint-docs" "--src" "/checkout/compiler" "--out" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/md-doc/rustc/src/lints" "--rustc" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/bin/rustc" "--rustc-target" "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"


failed to run: /checkout/obj/build/bootstrap/debug/bootstrap --stage 2 test --exclude src/tools/tidy
Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:30:24

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

@bors r-

(But please reapprove once things are working, or ping me on Zulip and I can drive this to conclusion).

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Dec 21, 2020
@wesleywiser
Copy link
Member Author

I'm having issue running this locally so we should wait until CI is green before r+'ing again.

@wesleywiser
Copy link
Member Author

Seems that did it!

@bors r=Mark-Simulacrum

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 21, 2020

📌 Commit 483668b has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

@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-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Dec 21, 2020
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 21, 2020

⌛ Testing commit 483668b with merge 0d24b4260d227ccef37e1be8e776320ef0e287b0...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 22, 2020

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

@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 Dec 22, 2020
@wesleywiser
Copy link
Member Author

@Mark-Simulacrum any idea why this failed? I can't seem to access the log for the failed builder.

@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum removed beta-accepted Accepted for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. beta-nominated Nominated for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. labels Dec 22, 2020
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

@bors retry

I think the self hosted runners sometimes just die midbuild.

@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 Dec 22, 2020
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 22, 2020

⌛ Testing commit 483668b with merge b0dc3c6...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 22, 2020

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Mark-Simulacrum
Pushing b0dc3c6 to beta...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Dec 22, 2020
@bors bors merged commit b0dc3c6 into rust-lang:beta Dec 22, 2020
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.49.0 milestone Dec 22, 2020
tgross35 added a commit to tgross35/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2024
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
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2024
…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
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. 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.

6 participants