rust/tests/ui/issues/issue-17800.stderr

error[E0769]: tuple variant `MyOption::MySome` written as struct variant
  --> $DIR/issue-17800.rs:8:9
   |
LL |         MyOption::MySome { x: 42 } => (),
   |         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   |
help: use the tuple variant pattern syntax instead
   |
LL |         MyOption::MySome(42) => (),
   |                         ~~~~

error: aborting due to previous error

For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0769`.
Tweak conditions for E0026 and E0769 When we have a tuple struct used with struct we don't want to suggest using the (valid) struct syntax with numeric field names. Instead we want to suggest the expected syntax. Given ```rust fn main() { match MyOption::MySome(42) { MyOption::MySome { x: 42 } => (), _ => (), } } ``` We now emit E0769 "tuple variant `MyOption::MySome` written as struct variant" instead of E0026 "variant `MyOption::MySome` does not have a field named `x`". 2020-08-09 18:56:47 -05:00			error[E0769]: tuple variant `MyOption::MySome` written as struct variant
			`--> $DIR/issue-17800.rs:8:9`
Move some `compile-fail` tests to `ui` 2018-07-15 16:11:54 -05:00			`\|`
			`LL \| MyOption::MySome { x: 42 } => (),`
Fix suggestion span and move suggestions into new subwindow. 2021-02-20 14:33:08 -06:00			`\| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^`
			`\|`
			`help: use the tuple variant pattern syntax instead`
			`\|`
			`LL \| MyOption::MySome(42) => (),`
Modify structured suggestion output * On suggestions that include deletions, use a diff inspired output format * When suggesting addition, use `+` as underline * Color highlight modified span 2021-06-21 21:07:19 -05:00			`\| ~~~~`
Move some `compile-fail` tests to `ui` 2018-07-15 16:11:54 -05:00
Fixed: Multiple errors on single typo in match pattern Here we have fixed the case where we were throwing two diagnostic messages `E0026` and `E0027` for same case like this Example error[E0026]: variant `A::A` does not have a field named `fob` --> src/test/ui/issue-52717.rs:20:12 \| 20 \| A::A { fob } => { println!("{}", fob); } \| ^^^ variant `A::A` does not have this field error[E0027]: pattern does not mention field `foo` --> src/test/ui/issue-52717.rs:20:5 \| 20 \| A::A { fob } => { println!("{}", fob); } \| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ missing field `foo` error: aborting due to 2 previous errors Here above we can see that both `E0026` and `E0027` are depicting same thing. So, to fix this issue, we are simply checking element of `inexistent_fields` is there any value lies in `unmentioned_fields` using Levenshtein algorithm, if does then for that case we are simply deleting element from `unmentioned_fields`. More or less now instead of showing separate message in `E0027` we are giving extra hint on `E0026` Address: #52717 2018-10-19 05:33:49 -05:00			`error: aborting due to previous error`
Move some `compile-fail` tests to `ui` 2018-07-15 16:11:54 -05:00
Tweak conditions for E0026 and E0769 When we have a tuple struct used with struct we don't want to suggest using the (valid) struct syntax with numeric field names. Instead we want to suggest the expected syntax. Given ```rust fn main() { match MyOption::MySome(42) { MyOption::MySome { x: 42 } => (), _ => (), } } ``` We now emit E0769 "tuple variant `MyOption::MySome` written as struct variant" instead of E0026 "variant `MyOption::MySome` does not have a field named `x`". 2020-08-09 18:56:47 -05:00			For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0769`.