-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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
Do not merge: check if we sometimes fail to get snippets #13941
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
0e8033c
to
28c06ee
Compare
4b9a44e
to
478a59c
Compare
182d959
to
421485d
Compare
maybe this could be a debug assertion like the infamous https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/243d2ca4db6f96d2d18aaf3a2381251d38eb6b0b/compiler/rustc_errors/src/diagnostic.rs#L1007 |
Indeed. Another thing I realized when exchanging with @GuillaumeGomez is that we appear to use |
Sounds like a case where we should return |
Yes, but we return |
Adding a |
The code should not attempt to obtain a snippet by capping the function signature span with its identifier span without checking that they are in the same context.
421485d
to
ce1f1b1
Compare
The code should not attempt to obtain a snippet by capping the function signature span with its identifier span without checking that they are in the same context. This is the only instance I could identify where placeholders were used instead of the real snippet when running the CI lintcheck. Moreover, the placeholders were not even used, as they snippet was obtained prematurely. Found in the context of #13941 changelog: none
I am looking at snippets and placeholders, and was wondering in which case a snippet could fail. This is to run a
lintcheck
in CI conditions. Not obtaining a snippet will result into an ICE.changelog: none