mikros/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
c924e93ad9
rust/tests/ui/argument-suggestions/extra_arguments.stderr

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

399 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 0 arguments but 1 argument was supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:19:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
LL | empty("");
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
| ^^^^^ -- unexpected argument of type `&'static str`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:1:4
|
LL | fn empty() {}
| ^^^^^
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - empty("");
LL + empty();
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
Fix overlapping spans in removing extra arguments
2023-02-19 08:24:24 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 0 arguments but 2 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:20:3
Fix overlapping spans in removing extra arguments
2023-02-19 08:24:24 -06:00
|
LL | empty(1, 1);
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^ - - unexpected argument #2 of type `{integer}`
Fix overlapping spans in removing extra arguments
2023-02-19 08:24:24 -06:00
| |
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| unexpected argument #1 of type `{integer}`
Fix overlapping spans in removing extra arguments
2023-02-19 08:24:24 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:1:4
|
LL | fn empty() {}
| ^^^^^
help: remove the extra arguments
|
LL - empty(1, 1);
LL + empty();
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 1 argument but 2 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:22:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
LL | one_arg(1, 1);
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^ - unexpected argument #2 of type `{integer}`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:2:4
|
add more tests for argument removal with wacky spans
2023-07-30 12:19:43 -05:00
LL | fn one_arg<T>(_a: T) {}
| ^^^^^^^ -----
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - one_arg(1, 1);
LL + one_arg(1);
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 1 argument but 2 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:23:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
LL | one_arg(1, "");
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^ -- unexpected argument #2 of type `&'static str`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:2:4
|
add more tests for argument removal with wacky spans
2023-07-30 12:19:43 -05:00
LL | fn one_arg<T>(_a: T) {}
| ^^^^^^^ -----
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - one_arg(1, "");
LL + one_arg(1);
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 1 argument but 3 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:24:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
LL | one_arg(1, "", 1.0);
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^ -- --- unexpected argument #3 of type `{float}`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
| |
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| unexpected argument #2 of type `&'static str`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:2:4
|
add more tests for argument removal with wacky spans
2023-07-30 12:19:43 -05:00
LL | fn one_arg<T>(_a: T) {}
| ^^^^^^^ -----
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
help: remove the extra arguments
|
More accurate spans for arg removal suggestion
2023-01-01 01:13:36 -06:00
LL - one_arg(1, "", 1.0);
Avoid trailing commas
2023-01-01 02:37:24 -06:00
LL + one_arg(1);
More accurate spans for arg removal suggestion
2023-01-01 01:13:36 -06:00
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 2 arguments but 3 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:26:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
LL | two_arg_same(1, 1, 1);
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ - unexpected argument #3 of type `{integer}`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:3:4
|
LL | fn two_arg_same(_a: i32, _b: i32) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------- -------
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - two_arg_same(1, 1, 1);
LL + two_arg_same(1, 1);
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 2 arguments but 3 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:27:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
LL | two_arg_same(1, 1, 1.0);
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ --- unexpected argument #3 of type `{float}`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:3:4
|
LL | fn two_arg_same(_a: i32, _b: i32) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------- -------
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - two_arg_same(1, 1, 1.0);
LL + two_arg_same(1, 1);
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 2 arguments but 3 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:29:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
LL | two_arg_diff(1, 1, "");
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ - unexpected argument #2 of type `{integer}`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:4:4
|
LL | fn two_arg_diff(_a: i32, _b: &str) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------- --------
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - two_arg_diff(1, 1, "");
LL + two_arg_diff(1, "");
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 2 arguments but 3 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:30:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
LL | two_arg_diff(1, "", "");
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- unexpected argument #3 of type `&'static str`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:4:4
|
LL | fn two_arg_diff(_a: i32, _b: &str) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------- --------
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - two_arg_diff(1, "", "");
LL + two_arg_diff(1, "");
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 2 arguments but 4 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:31:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
LL | two_arg_diff(1, 1, "", "");
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ - -- unexpected argument #4 of type `&'static str`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
| |
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| unexpected argument #2 of type `{integer}`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:4:4
|
LL | fn two_arg_diff(_a: i32, _b: &str) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------- --------
help: remove the extra arguments
|
More accurate spans for arg removal suggestion
2023-01-01 01:13:36 -06:00
LL - two_arg_diff(1, 1, "", "");
LL + two_arg_diff(1, "");
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 2 arguments but 4 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:32:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
LL | two_arg_diff(1, "", 1, "");
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ - -- unexpected argument #4 of type `&'static str`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
| |
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| unexpected argument #3 of type `{integer}`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:4:4
|
LL | fn two_arg_diff(_a: i32, _b: &str) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------- --------
help: remove the extra arguments
|
More accurate spans for arg removal suggestion
2023-01-01 01:13:36 -06:00
LL - two_arg_diff(1, "", 1, "");
Avoid trailing commas
2023-01-01 02:37:24 -06:00
LL + two_arg_diff(1, "");
More accurate spans for arg removal suggestion
2023-01-01 01:13:36 -06:00
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 2 arguments but 3 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:35:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
LL | two_arg_same(1, 1, "");
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- unexpected argument #3 of type `&'static str`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:3:4
|
LL | fn two_arg_same(_a: i32, _b: i32) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------- -------
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - two_arg_same(1, 1, "");
LL + two_arg_same(1, 1);
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 2 arguments but 3 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:36:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
LL | two_arg_diff(1, 1, "");
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ - unexpected argument #2 of type `{integer}`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:4:4
|
LL | fn two_arg_diff(_a: i32, _b: &str) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------- --------
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - two_arg_diff(1, 1, "");
LL + two_arg_diff(1, "");
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 2 arguments but 3 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:37:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
LL | two_arg_same(
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
LL | ""
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| -- unexpected argument #3 of type `&'static str`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:3:4
|
LL | fn two_arg_same(_a: i32, _b: i32) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------- -------
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - 1,
LL - ""
LL + 1
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 2 arguments but 3 arguments were supplied
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:43:3
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
LL | two_arg_diff(
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
LL | 1,
LL | 1,
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| - unexpected argument #2 of type `{integer}`
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:4:4
|
LL | fn two_arg_diff(_a: i32, _b: &str) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------- --------
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - 1,
|
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
Fix overlapping spans in removing extra arguments
2023-02-19 08:24:24 -06:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 0 arguments but 2 arguments were supplied
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:8:9
|
LL | empty($x, 1);
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^ - unexpected argument #2 of type `{integer}`
Fix overlapping spans in removing extra arguments
2023-02-19 08:24:24 -06:00
...
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
LL | foo!(1, ~);
| ----------
Fix overlapping spans in removing extra arguments
2023-02-19 08:24:24 -06:00
| | |
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| | unexpected argument #1 of type `{integer}`
Fix overlapping spans in removing extra arguments
2023-02-19 08:24:24 -06:00
| in this macro invocation
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:1:4
|
LL | fn empty() {}
| ^^^^^
= note: this error originates in the macro `foo` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 0 arguments but 2 arguments were supplied
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:14:9
|
LL | empty(1, $y);
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^ - unexpected argument #1 of type `{integer}`
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
...
LL | foo!(~, 1);
| ----------
| | |
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| | unexpected argument #2 of type `{integer}`
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
| in this macro invocation
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:1:4
|
LL | fn empty() {}
| ^^^^^
= note: this error originates in the macro `foo` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
error[E0061]: this function takes 0 arguments but 2 arguments were supplied
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:11:9
|
LL | empty($x, $y);
| ^^^^^
...
LL | foo!(1, 1);
| ----------
| | | |
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| | | unexpected argument #2 of type `{integer}`
| | unexpected argument #1 of type `{integer}`
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
| in this macro invocation
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:1:4
|
LL | fn empty() {}
| ^^^^^
= note: this error originates in the macro `foo` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
error[E0061]: this function takes 1 argument but 2 arguments were supplied
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:53:3
|
LL | one_arg(1, panic!());
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^ -------- unexpected argument #2
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:2:4
|
add more tests for argument removal with wacky spans
2023-07-30 12:19:43 -05:00
LL | fn one_arg<T>(_a: T) {}
| ^^^^^^^ -----
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - one_arg(1, panic!());
LL + one_arg(1);
|
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 1 argument but 2 arguments were supplied
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:54:3
|
LL | one_arg(panic!(), 1);
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^ - unexpected argument #2 of type `{integer}`
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:2:4
|
add more tests for argument removal with wacky spans
2023-07-30 12:19:43 -05:00
LL | fn one_arg<T>(_a: T) {}
| ^^^^^^^ -----
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - one_arg(panic!(), 1);
LL + one_arg(panic!());
|
add macro test cases to extra arguments test
2023-06-10 11:54:46 -05:00
add more tests for argument removal with wacky spans
2023-07-30 12:19:43 -05:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 1 argument but 2 arguments were supplied
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:55:3
|
LL | one_arg(stringify!($e), 1);
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^ - unexpected argument #2 of type `{integer}`
add more tests for argument removal with wacky spans
2023-07-30 12:19:43 -05:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:2:4
|
LL | fn one_arg<T>(_a: T) {}
| ^^^^^^^ -----
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - one_arg(stringify!($e), 1);
LL + one_arg(stringify!($e));
|
add more tests for argument removal with wacky spans
2023-07-30 12:19:43 -05:00
error[E0061]: this function takes 1 argument but 2 arguments were supplied
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:60:3
|
LL | one_arg(for _ in 1.. {}, 1);
Use ordinal number in argument error Fix error message Fix tests Format
2024-05-12 02:40:59 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^ - unexpected argument #2 of type `{integer}`
add more tests for argument removal with wacky spans
2023-07-30 12:19:43 -05:00
|
note: function defined here
--> $DIR/extra_arguments.rs:2:4
|
LL | fn one_arg<T>(_a: T) {}
| ^^^^^^^ -----
Use verbose style for argument removal suggestion
2024-07-05 14:40:09 -05:00
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - one_arg(for _ in 1.. {}, 1);
LL + one_arg(for _ in 1.. {});
|
add more tests for argument removal with wacky spans
2023-07-30 12:19:43 -05:00
error: aborting due to 22 previous errors
Implementation for 65853 This attempts to bring better error messages to invalid method calls, by applying some heuristics to identify common mistakes. The algorithm is inspired by Levenshtein distance and longest common sub-sequence. In essence, we treat the types of the function, and the types of the arguments you provided as two "words" and compute the edits to get from one to the other. We then modify that algorithm to detect 4 cases: - A function input is missing - An extra argument was provided - The type of an argument is straight up invalid - Two arguments have been swapped - A subset of the arguments have been shuffled (We detect the last two as separate cases so that we can detect two swaps, instead of 4 parameters permuted.) It helps to understand this argument by paying special attention to terminology: "inputs" refers to the inputs being *expected* by the function, and "arguments" refers to what has been provided at the call site. The basic sketch of the algorithm is as follows: - Construct a boolean grid, with a row for each argument, and a column for each input. The cell [i, j] is true if the i'th argument could satisfy the j'th input. - If we find an argument that could satisfy no inputs, provided for an input that can't be satisfied by any other argument, we consider this an "invalid type". - Extra arguments are those that can't satisfy any input, provided for an input that *could* be satisfied by another argument. - Missing inputs are inputs that can't be satisfied by any argument, where the provided argument could satisfy another input - Swapped / Permuted arguments are identified with a cycle detection algorithm. As each issue is found, we remove the relevant inputs / arguments and check for more issues. If we find no issues, we match up any "valid" arguments, and start again. Note that there's a lot of extra complexity: - We try to stay efficient on the happy path, only computing the diagonal until we find a problem, and then filling in the rest of the matrix. - Closure arguments are wrapped in a tuple and need to be unwrapped - We need to resolve closure types after the rest, to allow the most specific type constraints - We need to handle imported C functions that might be variadic in their inputs. I tried to document a lot of this in comments in the code and keep the naming clear.
2022-01-21 22:50:54 -06:00
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0061`.
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink