rust/tests/ui/pattern/usefulness/struct-like-enum-nonexhaustive.stderr

error[E0004]: non-exhaustive patterns: `A::B { x: Some(_) }` not covered
  --> $DIR/struct-like-enum-nonexhaustive.rs:8:11
   |
LL |     match x {
   |           ^ pattern `A::B { x: Some(_) }` not covered
   |
note: `A` defined here
  --> $DIR/struct-like-enum-nonexhaustive.rs:2:5
   |
LL | enum A {
   |      -
LL |     B { x: Option<isize> },
   |     ^ not covered
   = note: the matched value is of type `A`
help: ensure that all possible cases are being handled by adding a match arm with a wildcard pattern or an explicit pattern as shown
   |
LL ~         A::B { x: None } => {},
LL +         A::B { x: Some(_) } => todo!()
   |

error: aborting due to previous error

For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0004`.
Include enum path in variant suggestion 2022-09-02 22:01:35 -05:00			error[E0004]: non-exhaustive patterns: `A::B { x: Some(_) }` not covered
Remove licenses 2018-12-25 09:56:47 -06:00			`--> $DIR/struct-like-enum-nonexhaustive.rs:8:11`
Moved compile-fail tests to ui tests. 2018-08-08 07:28:26 -05:00			`\|`
Point at uncovered variants in enum definition in `note` instead of a `span_label` This makes the order of the output always consistent: 1. Place of the `match` missing arms 2. The `enum` definition span 3. The structured suggestion to add a fallthrough arm 2021-12-15 23:06:44 -06:00			`LL \| match x {`
Include enum path in variant suggestion 2022-09-02 22:01:35 -05:00			\| ^ pattern `A::B { x: Some(_) }` not covered
Point at enum definition when match patterns are not exhaustive ``` error[E0004]: non-exhaustive patterns: type `X` is non-empty --> file.rs:9:11 \| 1 \| / enum X { 2 \| \| A, \| \| - variant not covered 3 \| \| B, \| \| - variant not covered 4 \| \| C, \| \| - variant not covered 5 \| \| } \| \|_- `X` defined here ... 9 \| match x { \| ^ \| = help: ensure that all possible cases are being handled, possibly by adding wildcards or more match arms error[E0004]: non-exhaustive patterns: `B` and `C` not covered --> file.rs:11:11 \| 1 \| / enum X { 2 \| \| A, 3 \| \| B, 4 \| \| C, \| \| - not covered 5 \| \| } \| \|_- `X` defined here ... 11 \| match x { \| ^ patterns `C` not covered ``` When a match expression doesn't have patterns covering every variant, point at the enum's definition span. On a best effort basis, point at the variant(s) that are missing. This does not handle the case when the missing pattern is due to a field's enum variants: ``` enum E1 { A, B, C, } enum E2 { A(E1), B, } fn foo() { match E2::A(E1::A) { E2::A(E1::B) => {} E2::B => {} } //~^ ERROR `E2::A(E1::A)` and `E2::A(E1::C)` not handled } ``` Unify look between match with no arms and match with some missing patterns. Fix #37518. 2019-02-10 07:12:00 -06:00			`\|`
Point at uncovered variants in enum definition in `note` instead of a `span_label` This makes the order of the output always consistent: 1. Place of the `match` missing arms 2. The `enum` definition span 3. The structured suggestion to add a fallthrough arm 2021-12-15 23:06:44 -06:00			note: `A` defined here
			`--> $DIR/struct-like-enum-nonexhaustive.rs:2:5`
			`\|`
			`LL \| enum A {`
			`\| -`
			`LL \| B { x: Option<isize> },`
			`\| ^ not covered`
non-exhastive diagnostic: add note re. scrutinee type 2020-03-27 00:44:30 -05:00			= note: the matched value is of type `A`
Change wording of suggestion to add missing `match` arm 2021-12-16 16:46:13 -06:00			`help: ensure that all possible cases are being handled by adding a match arm with a wildcard pattern or an explicit pattern as shown`
When finding a match expr with multiple arms that requires more, suggest it Given ```rust match Some(42) { Some(0) => {} Some(1) => {} } ``` suggest ```rust match Some(42) { Some(0) => {} Some(1) => {} None \| Some(_) => todo!(), } ``` 2021-12-15 20:28:09 -06:00			`\|`
Perform match checking on THIR. 2023-02-27 11:43:39 -06:00			`LL ~ A::B { x: None } => {},`
Include enum path in variant suggestion 2022-09-02 22:01:35 -05:00			`LL + A::B { x: Some(_) } => todo!()`
When finding a match expr with multiple arms that requires more, suggest it Given ```rust match Some(42) { Some(0) => {} Some(1) => {} } ``` suggest ```rust match Some(42) { Some(0) => {} Some(1) => {} None \| Some(_) => todo!(), } ``` 2021-12-15 20:28:09 -06:00			`\|`
Moved compile-fail tests to ui tests. 2018-08-08 07:28:26 -05:00
			`error: aborting due to previous error`

			For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0004`.